THE IMPACT OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
ON LEARNER INTERACTIONS:
A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY OF ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS
A Dissertation by
Russell K. Miller
Master of Education, Wichita State University, 1988
Bachelor of Music, Friends University, 1983
Submitted to the College of Education
and the faculty of the Graduate School of
Wichita State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2006
Copyright 2006 by Russell K. Miller
All Rights Reserved
THE IMPACT OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
ON LEARNER INTERACTIONS:
A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY OF ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS
I have examined the final copy of this Dissertation for form and content and recommend
that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of
Education with a major in Educational Leadership.
____________________________________
Dr. Ian W. Gibson, Committee Chair
We have read this Dissertation and
recommend its acceptance:
____________________________________
Dr. Nancy Bolz, Committee Member
____________________________________
Dr. Jeri Carroll, Committee Member
____________________________________
Dr. Jean Patterson, Committee Member
____________________________________
Dr. Randy Turk, Committee Member
Accepted for the College of Education
____________________________________
Dr. Jon M. Engelhardt, Dean
Accepted for the Graduate School
____________________________________
Dr. Susan K. Kovar, Dean
iii
DEDICATION
To my wife, Susan, for her unconditional love, encouragement, and support – during my
doctoral journey and, more importantly, throughout our life journey together.
iv
The rate of change in the society in which we live forces us to
redefine how we shall educate a new generation.
Jerome S. Bruner
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my friends and colleagues in Cohort 12 – Rae Niles, Marty
Stessman, Cameron Carlson, David Sheppard, and Robert Morton – for their friendship
and support as we maneuvered through our doctoral program together. Together, we
made a difficult journey bearable; we laughed a lot, we supported one another, and
together we emerged stronger from the experience. I will always count you among my
closest friends.
My sincerest appreciation goes to Dr. Ian Gibson, my dissertation advisor, for his
friendship and guidance over the past three years. I have appreciated his humor, his
passion for technology, and his dogged determination in seeing me through this process.
My appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Howard Pitler and Dr. Denise Seguine for their
assistance and guidance during my research and writing, and to my committee members –
Dr. Nancy Bolz, Dr. Jeri Carroll, Dr. Jean Patterson, and Dr. Randy Turk – for their
contributions to my research proposal and defense.
An additional acknowledgment is due “Anna,” “Barbara,” “Christie,” and their
students for allowing me to invade their classrooms while they participated in this
project. My “hats” – both researcher and supervisor – are off to them in deepest
appreciation for the incredible work they do every day.
Finally, and most importantly, I thank my family – Susan, Jessica, and Andy – for
their support and caring and putting up with the stresses of this work. I truly could not
have done it without them!
vi
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to study a selection of elementary school
classrooms during their normal instructional routines in order to observe, analyze, and
describe the impact of educational technology on learner interactions. As a study
grounded in the concepts of the qualitative research tradition, the research methods
employed included observations, personal interviews of teachers, focus group interviews
of students, and document review. The purposeful selection of teachers, who were
disposed to distinctly different pedagogical practice and use of educational technology,
provided a wide variety of experiences for the data collection process as the researcher
interacted with the classroom occupants in the role of participant observer. The study was
conducted by a researcher who was simultaneously serving as the school’s principal,
providing an additional focus as the potential conflict of researcher and supervisor roles
was explored and analyzed.
The analysis and presentation of these three individual case studies provided a
thorough description of the learning environments under study, and explored the different
philosophies and pedagogical practices of the three teachers in addition to their level of
comfort with incorporating educational technology into their classrooms. Findings
indicated that educational technology, when incorporated into traditional teaching
practice, resulted in little change in learner interactions but a discernable increase in
student interest and motivation. When integrated into lesson presentations that were more
constructivist in nature – e.g. student-centered or project-based – educational technology
was observed to facilitate higher levels of communication and collaboration between
students and teachers. Particularly of interest was a “students as teachers” model that
vii
occurred frequently as students shared their knowledge and interests with others, often
coupled with teachers allowing students to have more control of the learning process.
The findings of the study support the conclusions that integrating technology can
positively impact the interactions of learners in elementary classrooms when used as a
tool to support constructivist pedagogy. The conclusions also definitively speak to the
powerful role of the individual teacher and how their daily instructional decisions are
impacted by their personal philosophies, background, pedagogical preferences, and
comfort with the technological tools at their disposal.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................. 1
Background and Rationale of the Study........................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem........................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study.................................................................................................. 7
Research Question ..................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study........................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................... 9
Methodology Overview ........................................................................................... 10
Dissertation Format ................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................... 13
Literature Review.......................................................................................................... 13
Constructivism Explored ......................................................................................... 13
Competing Theoretical Frameworks ........................................................................ 21
Organizational Culture and Change.................................................................... 21
Systems Thinking .............................................................................................. 23
Constructivism as a Theoretical Framework ............................................................ 24
Longitudinal Studies................................................................................................ 25
National Assessment of Educational Progress Study in Mathematics ................. 26
Idaho Council for Technology in Learning......................................................... 27
West Virginia Study........................................................................................... 28
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow ........................................................................ 30
Laptop Computers ................................................................................................... 31
Laptop Word Processors and Handheld Computers.................................................. 35
Teacher Beliefs and Practices .................................................................................. 40
CHAPTER THREE....................................................................................................... 46
Research Design and Methodology................................................................................ 46
Research Site........................................................................................................... 47
Data Collection Strategies........................................................................................ 49
Research Participants ......................................................................................... 51
Observations...................................................................................................... 52
Personal Interviews............................................................................................ 55
Focus Group Interviews ..................................................................................... 56
Document Review ............................................................................................. 58
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 58
Delimitations and Limitations.................................................................................. 62
Researcher vs. Supervisor Role Confict ................................................................... 63
ix
CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................... 67
Findings ........................................................................................................................ 67
Case Study #1 – Anna’s Classroom ......................................................................... 69
Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology ................................................. 72
Interactions in the Absence of Educational Technology ..................................... 74
Interactions in the Presence of Educational Technology ..................................... 78
Learner Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning .............. 82
Exploring the Researcher-Supervisor Role Conflict ........................................... 85
Case Study #2 – Barbara’s Classroom ..................................................................... 91
Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology ................................................. 95
Interactions in the Absence of Educational Technology ..................................... 96
Interactions in the Presence of Educational Technology ................................... 100
Learner Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning ............ 105
Exploring the Researcher-Supervisor Role Conflict ......................................... 109
Case Study #3 – Christie’s Classroom ................................................................... 113
Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology ............................................... 118
Interactions in the Absence of Educational Technology ................................... 120
Interactions in the Presence of Educational Technology ................................... 123
Learner Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning ............ 128
Exploring the Researcher-Supervisor Role Conflict ......................................... 131
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................... 135
Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 135
Teaching Philosophy and Pedagogy....................................................................... 135
Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology ..................................................... 139
Learner Interactions and Pedagogical Choices ....................................................... 143
Learner Interactions and Educational Technology.................................................. 146
Learner Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning .................. 150
Observer Effect on the Research ............................................................................ 151
Summary of Conclusions....................................................................................... 155
Implications of the Research.................................................................................. 158
LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................. 164
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 179
Appendix A – Adult Consent Form........................................................................ 180
Appendix B – Parent Consent/Student Assent Form .............................................. 181
Appendix C – Personal Interview Protocol ............................................................ 182
Appendix D – Student Focus Group Protocol ........................................................ 185
x
CHAPTER ONE
Background and Rationale of the Study
The use of educational technology in schools as a means to improve student
learning has received extensive attention over the past two decades. With the advent of
the internet and a variety of software and hardware applications, school districts have
predominantly focused on the acquisition of hardware and computer network
infrastructure in the pursuit of educational technology goals (Anderson & Becker, 2001).
Innovations over that time period have ranged from the first introduction of single
computers for use in classrooms, to stand-alone computer labs with limited skill-based
software, to school wide distributive networks of computers running prescriptive
curriculum-driven software applications, to wide area networks featuring broadband
internet access and streaming video (Parsad & Jones, 2005). A dramatic increase has
been observed in the availability of computer technology, as the student to computer ratio
(without internet access) has been reduced from 125:1 in 1983 (Panel on Educational
Technology, 1997) to nearly 4:1 by 2003, with almost 100% of schools having internet
access (Parsad & Jones, 2005). While access and availability to computer technologies
has significantly increased in schools throughout the country, questions persist as to the
actual impact these technologies are having in the planning and delivery of instruction as
well as the perceived benefits to the learning process. The study described in this
document was designed to discover research-based truths related to educational
technology and its use in schools. Such discovery will serve to assist in understanding the
impact technology is having on the way the inhabitants of school classrooms interact with
one another as they go about the business of “schooling.”
1
The impact of educational technology has been met with much skepticism in
recent years due to a lack of evidence that it has been effective in improving student
learning and its perceived excessive cost (Cuban, 2001). Federal school technology
initiatives alone, for example, increased from $21 million in 1995 to $729 million in 2001
(O'Dwyer, Russell, & Bebell, 2004a). Market Data Retrieval (2005) accentuated this
trend in that, despite continually declining budgets, 70% of school districts across the
nation anticipated technology spending to increase or remain unchanged in the 2006
fiscal year. The extensive expenditures on technology in schools have been accompanied
by claims that technology’s impact on education is significant (Software & Information
Industry Association, 2000). This report, notably commissioned by the software industry
and significantly questioned by critics as to its intent due to a potential conflict of
interest, also found positive correlations in technology affecting student achievement,
motivation, and self-concept. Critics have often questioned such claims when made by
insiders of the hardware and software industries (Weiner, 2000).
Bloom (1996) stated that educators should use much care and skepticism as they
travel along the “information super-toll road” (p. ¶ 1). Bloom also perceived comparisons
to the current push for technology with other reforms of the past that have failed or had
minimal impact, e.g. language labs and filmstrip viewers. Such criticisms have at times
been so prevalent as to catch the attention of the mainstream media. The New York
Times referred to the work of William Rukeyser, coordinator of Learning in the Real
World, a nonprofit organization that often questions the value of technology in schools.
Rukeyser suggested that it was “incumbent on educators and policy leaders to adopt a
caveat emptor attitude. The bottom line on educational technology is that the jury is still
2
out and more objective, arm’s length research is needed” (Weiner, 2000, ¶ 14). The
federal government has echoed these concerns more recently, arguing that “federal
investments in educational technology have demonstrated too little impact on academic
achievement…the value of educational technology needs to be weighed alongside other
efforts to improve education” (Trotter, 2005, ¶ 3). The result of this shift in federal policy
and implementation of significant federal education legislation (No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, 2002) has been to focus educational technology efforts away from
curriculum and technology integration and toward more advanced data management
systems (Trotter, 2005).
Many researchers have attempted to respond to the call for additional research in
proving the value of educational technology. For example, the utilization of computer
technology in schools can be perceived along a continuum of technology use. Coley,
Cradler, and Engel (1997) found that most technology implementations had been oriented
to drill and practice forms of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), which had generally
been found effective in producing gains in student achievement. Kosakowski (1998)
echoed that students usually learned more content more rapidly in classes that used CAI
in this manner. A study by the National Center for Educational Statistics (Smerdon et al.,
2000) found that the most frequent usage of computers was word processing or creating
spreadsheets, “followed by Internet research, practicing drills, and solving problems and
analyzing data” (p. 9).
At the opposite end of the educational technology continuum, advanced forms of
technology integration have allowed students to have more control over their own
learning. These typically more cognitive applications can “engage students in authentic
3
tasks, often with other students, using computer network software and databases that are
intended not only to improve subject matter learning, but to develop skills in cooperation,
communication, and problem solving” (Coley et al., 1997, p. 36). Heath et al. (2000),
found that teachers observed improved student work interest and habits, which resulted in
control often being loosened in other areas as students were granted “greater autonomy in
their work” (p. 77), while Pisapia, Coukos, and Knutson (2000) noted less lecture and
presentation of more complex material as integration of educational technology
increased.
More recent initiatives in schools have provided laptop or handheld computers for
each and every student, with some schools allowing students to check out computers for
use at home as well as at school. Rockman (2003) claimed that such programs have
required teachers to significantly restructure how they teach, allowing a students as
teachers model to develop as “many students thrive in an environment where they have
skills and knowledge to share and to trade” (p. 26). Questions, however, have continued
to surface regarding how well teachers are prepared to utilize the current and emerging
technologies of the 21st Century.
Teacher knowledge and training is a critical component in the successful
integration of technology in today’s classrooms. The Software and Information Industry
Association (2000) found that educators are an essential element in the effectiveness of
technology. Such effectiveness depends upon a match between learner characteristics and
educators’ teaching goals and technology implementation decisions. Coley et al. (1997)
found that the effectiveness of any technology implementation is directly connected to
teacher preparedness, yet they claimed that “most teachers have not had suitable training
4
to prepare them to use technology in their teaching” (p. 42). Kleiman (2000) observed
that the lack of training and support to fully integrate technology into the core of
classroom instruction is so prevalent that computers tend to be used “around the edges of
the class’s main work” (¶ 7). Dirksen and Tharp (2000) also found that integration of
educational technology has been primarily limited to “using technology as a resource
tool” (p. 6).
The concern regarding teacher preparation for the effective utilization of
educational technology was reinforced by Cuban (1996), who posited that the
technological revolution in schools has been typically limited to a small cadre of
determined users while the majority of teachers remained casual or nonusers of the
available technologies. Cuban also proposed that teachers have lacked the access, skills,
and knowledge necessary to properly utilize such technology effectively in classrooms.
The preparedness of teachers to utilize technology was additionally addressed by Ivers
(2002), who found although most teachers have rated themselves as intermediate users,
they have not felt confident in using technology as a tool for student work. Preparation to
use technology was also a focus of a report issued by the Congress of the United States
(1995), which found a “majority of teachers report feeling inadequately trained to use
technology resources, particularly computer-based technologies” (p. 3).
As schools have continued to embrace and expand their use of educational
technology, teachers have often grappled with a lack of training in how best to integrate
technology into their pedagogical practice (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999), while
acknowledging that the use of technology has provided students “considerable motivation
to work and engage in learning” (Lockwood, 1998, p. 12). A movement toward more
5
constructivist-oriented teaching and learning has been observed to incorporate technology
in more powerful ways (Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 2000). This has been observed to result
in students who are “more active, autonomous, and highly engaged” (Heath et al., 2000,
p. 34) as learners of all ages interact with one another at the intersection of educational
technology and pedagogical practice (Gibson, 2001).
In light of these varying perspectives, there is a need to emphasize the role of
research-based evidence of the impact of educational technology on teaching practice and
the interactions of classroom inhabitants. Such evidence will serve to guide future
practice as well as future pedagogical and technological resource decisions.
Statement of the Problem
The potential of educational technology to reform education is of primary interest
to educators, local education agencies, and legislators throughout the nation. Billions of
dollars are allocated for computer hardware, software, and teacher training annually, yet
critics have continued to question whether this infusion of capitol has had any real impact
on teaching and learning. While research into the impact of educational technology on
student achievement exists, the problem remains that there is not enough known about the
impact of such technology on the learning environment of elementary school classrooms,
particularly on how learners of all ages interact and react with one another when
technology is integrated into the learning process. Technological innovations continue to
advance and are resulting in significant societal changes; the Digital Child of today has
“never known a time when computers were not an ordinary part of day-to-day life…or a
time when it was difficult to access information or to communicate with other human
beings with little regard to their actual geographical location” (Layton, 2000, ¶ 2).
6
Meanwhile, schools across the nation are struggling to enter the Digital Age, while most
classrooms continue to operate in an Industrial Age model (The George Lucas
Educational Foundation, 2002). In order to better lead schools into the Digital Age,
school leaders, teachers, and teacher preparation programs can benefit from additional
insight and knowledge into how the integration of technology is impacting learner
interactions in the elementary school classroom learning environment. At present, there is
insufficient focused research on this topic.
Purpose of the Study
In an effort to embrace the potential of the Digital Age classroom (The George
Lucas Educational Foundation, 2002) while using new technology tools and informationdistribution techniques “to reach and excite young minds” (McHugh, 2005, p. 33), school
personnel at the research site have continued to purchase and implement the use of a
variety of educational technology applications intended to engage students and enhance
teaching and learning. Most recently this investment has included the acquisition of a
number of SMART Board interactive whiteboards, a wireless mobile laptop computer
lab, and classroom sets of handheld computers to be utilized across the curriculum. While
the desire exists to provide an excellent education for all students enhanced with the
integration of technology into the curriculum, only a limited number of determined
teachers fully embrace the vision of a Digital Age classroom. Such a vision is fueled by
the strongly held belief among selected school personnel at the research site that a
technologically rich school experience is necessary for students and schools in the 21st
Century. It remains however, that while much is understood about best practices for
integrating technology into the curriculum, greater understanding of its impact on the
7
interactions of learners of all ages is yet to be fully explored. The purpose of this study,
therefore, was to observe, describe, and analyze the impact of educational technology on
learner interactions in selected elementary school classrooms.
Research Question
The following research question was developed to guide this study:
•
What changes occur in interactions between learners in elementary classrooms
due to the integration of technology into the learning environment?
The primary objective of this study was to observe a variety of elementary school
classrooms and describe and analyze any patterns that existed in regard to how the use of
educational technology was impacting learner interactions within the elementary
classroom environment.
Significance of the Study
This study sought to discover the impact of technology use on learner interactions
in the context of a small, urban elementary school. Many facets of the research, therefore,
were unique to this setting. Descriptive, scientifically derived data on the impact of
technology on learner interactions in elementary school classrooms have been provided
through this analysis, and as such have added to the knowledge base of how educational
technology is affecting the learning environment of students and teachers. The research
will thus support the process of transforming learning for students who exist in a
technology-rich 21st Century society, and may also impact how universities and schools
prepare new and experienced teachers for future learners and schools. Additionally, the
research will contribute to the field of qualitative research through an exploration of the
impact of potentially conflicting roles of the researcher on the researched.
8
Definition of Terms
To assist the reader in better understanding this project, the following definitions
are provided for key terms included in this report:
•
Educational Technology – Newhouse, Trinidad, and Clarkson (2002a) defined
educational technology as the “use of any technology to support the processes
of teaching and learning” (p. 46). Specifically within this research context the
term applied to desktop, laptop, and handheld computers along with
peripherals designed to enhance the use of such technology (SMART Boards,
printers, digital cameras, etc.).
•
Learner – While this term could easily be limited to only students in
classrooms, this research was undertaken with the concept that a classroom as
a learning community consists of community members “expressing their
aspirations, building their awareness, and developing their capabilities
together” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 5), thus being inclusive of teachers and other
adults as well.
•
Interaction – In terms of technology and learners, the term interaction is often
associated with distance education programs as well as the interactivity of
computer hardware and software applications. Wagner (1994) stated that an
instructional interaction is “an event that takes place between a learner and the
learner’s environment…intended to change his or her behavior toward an
educational goal” (p. 8), while Collins and Berge (2001) proposed two types
of interaction related to learning: a student interacting individually with course
content, and then interacting with others about the content. Attention to the
9
social component of human interactions was the primary focus of this
research.
•
Student-centered teaching – Often used interchangeably with “learnercentered teaching,” this concept is a critical component of constructivist
teaching practice. This approach to teaching views students as active
participants in their own learning and uses strategies where learning is more
individualized than standardized, and such teaching practice assists students in
developing higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills (Integrating
New Technologies Into the Methods of Education, 1999; Panel on
Educational Technology, 1997).
Methodology Overview
In order to definitively answer the research question by investigating how
technology was impacting the learning environment of elementary classrooms, a research
design that allowed for direct observation and thorough exploration of the research
context was necessary. Consequently, the design of the study, described in more detail
later in this report, evolved from within the qualitative research tradition and is described
as a multiple case study. Three separate classroom teachers were selected based upon
their varied teaching styles, perceived level of technology integration, and openness to
the research project. Such purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) was based on the
researcher’s observation and experience as a school-level administrator and the belief that
selected participants would provide an open and trusting research environment for the
study. A challenge in this study, and one explored in more depth later in the report, was
that the “principal researcher” was also the “principal” of the study participants.
10
Four primary methods of data collection – observations, personal interviews,
focus group interviews, and document review – were utilized during the research to
provide a thorough understanding of the interactions between the learners in the selected
classrooms. Throughout the data collection period the researcher conducted multiple
informal observations in each classroom, acting in what has been called the participant
observer role (Hall & Kassam, 1988; Spradley, 1980). During these informal
observations the researcher freely interacted with the learners in the classrooms while
jotting down salient points about the observation for later expansion into written
fieldnotes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). Three formal
observations were conducted in each classroom as well, with the researcher in a primarily
observational role for a longer period of time. Again, notes were taken and elaborated
upon for later reflection and data analysis.
Following the observations and nearing the end of the data collection period,
personal interviews were held with each of the three teachers. Questions, developed prior
to the research and expanded or revised following classroom observations, were asked in
a conversational format intended to provoke an open-ended dialogue between the
researcher and participant. A similar process was utilized with several focus group
interviews of students. The student participants were selected due to their perceived
ability to communicate effectively with the researcher, and questions similar to those
asked of the teachers were utilized within the conversational interview.
The constant comparative method of data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was
used to look for similarities and differences between and among units of data collected
from different sources. All data collected throughout the process (e.g. fieldnotes, observer
11
comments, interview transcripts) were unitized and coded to allow for the analysis of
data. Common themes and categories surfaced throughout the research process, and once
such labels emerged, each unit of data was coded according to where it fit within these
categories. Each individual classroom was undertaken as a separate descriptive case study
and, as such, is presented separately later in this document.
Dissertation Format
A synopsis of the background and rationale for this study has been presented in
this chapter along with an overview of the methodology utilized in conducting the
research. In order to better understand the research project and the academic and research
work that has preceded it, a selection of related literature was reviewed to provide a
foundation for this study and is presented in the following chapter. A thorough
description of the research methodology is presented in chapter three. In order to fully
explore the findings of the research, descriptive accounts of each case study are presented
in the fourth chapter. Finally, the report concludes with a discussion of the case study
findings and resultant conclusions, followed by an exploration of the implications of this
research.
12
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
This review of relevant literature has been designed to provide a knowledge base
of appropriate educational theory as well as an analysis of recent and past research in the
field of educational technology upon which the study was built. The review begins with
an exploration of the theoretical framework chosen to guide the study. Competing
theoretical frameworks are also explored as an acknowledgment that other approaches or
perspectives could have been used to frame the study. The next section of the review
presents applicable research from two decades of technology use in schools, and features
an overview of longitudinal studies as well as literature involving more recent laptop and
handheld computer initiatives. Finally, literature is presented as a foundation for
understanding the pedagogical beliefs and practices of teachers in general, and how the
evolution of technology integration has been defined in classrooms over the course of the
past twenty years.
Constructivism Explored
While defining the theoretical framework that guided this research process, the
theory of constructivism continually emerged as the lens through which this study was to
be viewed. The concept of constructivism is found consistently throughout educational
research, and is becoming particularly more prevalent in current educational technology
research as it enriches “students’ use of a variety of resources and help[s] them gain
understanding about their world (Adams & Burns, ¶ 2). At the essence of constructivism
is the belief that people learn through constructing their own understanding and
knowledge, gained through their personal experience and reflection upon those
13
experiences. The role of the teacher in a constructivist classroom is transformed from one
of purveyor of knowledge to a facilitator who guides children in the construction of their
own knowledge (Adams & Burns, 1999).
While the roots of constructivist learning can be traced back to antiquity in the
works of Socrates (Brooks, 2004), modern interpretations are based on the seminal works
of prominent child development psychologists from the early to middle 20th Century.
These foundational writings were explored to provide a thorough understanding of the
cornerstones of constructivism, and are summarized in the following paragraphs.
In a departure from the behaviorist underpinnings of traditional education, John
Dewey sought to describe how educators should understand the nature of how people
think and process information. At the core of his theory was the concept of reflective
thinking, which he described as “the kind of thinking that consists in turning a subject
over in the mind and giving it serious and consecutive consideration” (Dewey, 1933, p.
3). In other words, accepting knowledge delivered by teachers at face value may not
connect the new learning to any previous learning or experience, thus limiting the depth
and application of understanding that comes with more reflective thought.
While Dewey (1933) insisted that learning new material and concepts was
predominantly the responsibility of the learner, he also described the role of the teacher
as one who must stimulate curiosity and fully engage students in the learning process as
well as teach students how to think and process information:
The only way to increase the learning of pupils is to augment the quantity and
quality of real teaching. Since learning is something that the pupil has to do
himself and for himself, the initiative lies with the learner. The teacher is a guide
14
and director; he steers the boat, but the energy that propels it must come from
those who are learning. The more a teacher is aware of the past experiences of
students, of their hopes, desires, chief interests, the better will he understand the
forces at work that need to be directed and utilized for the formation of reflective
habits. (p. 36)
Dewey (1933) also elaborated on the process he described as the recitation. In
traditional as well as constructivist classrooms this often takes place in teacher-guided
questioning, although the traditional behaviorist classroom merely focuses on the rote
learning of facts and memorization of simple answers. If utilized to its full extent,
questioning leads learners to think reflectively and process information in such a way that
“thinking is inquiry, investigation, turning over, probing or delving into, so as to find
something new or to see what is already known in a different light” (p. 265).
Jean Piaget, a Swiss-born developmental psychologist, explored the role of
cognitive development further. Piaget’s primary work centered around the cognitive
development of children existing in stages that progressed one after another from birth
through adolescence. The stages were presented by Piaget as the sensorimotor stage from
birth to two years of age, the preoperational stage from two to seven years of age, the
concrete operational stage from seven to twelve years of age, and the formal operational
stage from age 12 through adulthood (Piaget, 1983).
Each stage of development was believed by Piaget to be sequential and necessary
in order for the next stage to progress. The sensorimotor stage, the first of the four,
existed completely prior to the development of language. The next stage, defined as
preoperational, featured “language, symbolic play, mental images, and so forth, up until
15
about the age of seven – which permits the representation of thought” (Bringuier, 1980,
pp. 25-26). The concrete operational stage was characterized by cognitive operations that
applied “directly to objects and…defined as being internalized or internalizable and
reversible” (p. 26), followed by the final formal operational stage that resulted from the
capability to think in the abstract and be no longer dependent upon objects to understand
and progress in cognitive development.
Additional exploration by Piaget focused on the two earlier developmental stages
and was particularly interested in how imitation and the playing of games contributed to
the cognitive development of children. Piaget posited that as children are presented with
various schemas or experiences, they begin to assimilate that information into future
events as they progress in their learning and begin to imitate themselves and others.
Accommodation of these experiences occurs as a child applies previous learning and
understanding to new experiences, and both assimilation and accommodation play a
fundamental role in the development of a child’s intelligence (Piaget, 1962).
Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist of the early 20th century, further
expounded on the development of learning in children. While Vygotsky (1978) wrote
extensively on the usage of signs and memory in the development of language, his
cognitive theory known as the zone of proximal development in children is perhaps his
most significant contribution to constructivist learning theory. In his laboratory work he
found that intelligence tests typically used with children often discounted their potential
for learning, focusing on their actual knowledge at a point in time; these tests were
typically used to track children into specific schools and mental institutions of the day.
16
Vygotsky discovered that children of the same chronological age often learned at
a different rate due to differences in their mental age. His zone of proximal development
was thus defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined
by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined
through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers” (p. 86). Vygotsky’s theory, then, was that mental development often lagged behind
physical development, and that the interaction with adults and peers in the learning
process allowed new learning to be internalized and become a part of a child’s
independent development.
Jerome Bruner, a prominent 20th century psychologist, was largely influenced by
the earlier research on child development of Piaget and Vygotsky. He utilized the
previously discussed stages of development in forming the theories presented in The
Process of Education (Bruner, 1960), which had a profound impact on educators and
policy makers of the day (Smith, 2002). Four major themes emerged in this work, which
was a synopsis of learning and discovery that had taken place at a 1959 meeting of
scientists, scholars, and educators at Woods Hole on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The first
theme, the role of structure in the learning process, was presented as a critical factor, and
Bruner posited that the focus on mastering facts and techniques was “at the center of the
classic problem of transfer” (Bruner, 1960, p. 12) of isolated skills to future learning. He
found that in order for earlier learning to support later learning, “it must do so by
providing a general picture in terms of which the relations between things encountered
earlier and later are made as clear as possible” (p. 12).
17
The second theme, readiness for learning, purported that “any subject can be
taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of
development” (Bruner, 1960, p. 33), and was critical of learning put off due to it
appearing too difficult for younger students to comprehend. The concept of a spiral
curriculum was introduced as a possibility to introduce a child at an early age to “the
ideas and styles that in later life make an educated man” (p. 52).
A child’s readiness for learning was expanded in the third theme, which sought to
encourage increased development of intuitive thinking along with the analytical approach
of most educational experiences. Allowing children to guess or experiment while having
the freedom of being incorrect was presented as an essential feature of productive
thinking. Such an approach, however, “requires a sensitive teacher to distinguish an
intuitive mistake – an interestingly wrong leap – from a stupid or ignorant mistake, and it
requires a teacher who can give approval and correction simultaneously to the intuitive
student” (Bruner, 1960, p. 68).
The final theme presented in this work was concerned with a child’s motives for
learning, and proposed that the best stimulus for learning was interest in the material
being presented as opposed to external modes of rewards and punishments. Bruner
suggested that “motives for learning must be kept from going passive in an age of
spectatorship, they must be based as much as possible upon the arousal of interest in what
there is to be learned, and they must be kept broad and diverse in expression” (Bruner,
1960, p. 80).
Much of Bruner’s theory centered upon discovery learning, where students were
encouraged to utilize the “natural energies that sustain spontaneous learning – curiosity, a
18
desire for competence, aspiration to emulate a model, and a deep-sensed commitment to
the web of social reciprocity” (Bruner, 1966, p. 127). Such an approach to teaching and
learning, while not requiring the student to discover everything on their own, would
develop student competence as well as a confidence in operating independently,
providing students with a “respect for their own powers of thinking, for their power to
generate good questions, to come up with interesting informed guesses” (p. 96). Bruner
proposed that inherent structural difficulties in schools, however, along with what was
imposed upon the learner by the school, typically required a student to experience
“restraint and immobility never asked of him before…he does not know whether he
knows and can get no indication from anybody for minutes at a time as to whether he is
on the right track” (p. 114). The role of teachers in developing intuitive and analytical
students is to give students “as firm a grasp of a subject as we can, and to make him as
autonomous and self-propelled a thinker as we can – one who will go along on his own
after formal schooling has ended” (Bruner, 1961, p. 23).
Educational psychologist David Ausubel, active in his field in the 1950s to 1970s,
developed his teaching and learning models based on the cognitive structures of children,
which were very closely aligned with earlier psychological foundations. Ausubel
proposed that for learning to have substance it must be meaningful in nature, and related
to prior learning and cognitive processes. He introduced the theory of subsumption,
proposing that since learning and knowledge are largely hierarchical in nature, each
subsequent learning comes from the “subsumption of potentially meaningful propositions
under more inclusive and general ideas in existing cognitive structure” (Ausubel, 1968, p.
52).
19
Ausubel differentiated between his meaningful reception learning theory and the
use of rote or discovery learning. Although the latter practices could be potentially
meaningful, rote learning was often cited as shallow knowledge prone to lapses of
memory. Discovery learning, in its purest form, was seen as requiring too much time and
too many resources as learners were left on their own to make meaning of a learning
activity. He proposed an alternative instructional tool – labeled advance organizer – to
assist students in relating new concepts to existing cognitive structures. An organizer is
designed “whose relevance to the learning task is made explicit,” serving as a tool to
assimilate newfound knowledge into the existing cognitive structure of the learner
(Ausubel, 1968, p. 131). Ausubel proposed that organizers be designed for each new
instructional unit to provide an ideational scaffold that would assist students in retaining
and incorporating more detailed and differentiated material (p. 148).
In combination, the writings of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, and Ausubel
serve to provide a deeper understanding of the theoretical framework of constructivism as
the foundation upon which the ensuing analysis of the impact of technology on learner
interactions is based. This exploration has provided pertinent knowledge of how,
according to constructivist theorists, intellectual development in children occurs, and
how, when presented with activities that naturally stimulate and engage the learner and
are connected to previous learning, such pedagogical approaches can serve to strengthen
learner interactions with academic content and with each other. The link between
constructivist pedagogy and educational technology has been observed to result in
significant changes in teaching and learning while often leading to more collaborative
learning environments as students take more responsibility for their own learning
20
(Becker, Ravitz, & Wong, 1999; Ravitz et al., 2000). The merging of these theories thus
provides an understanding of how learners interact with content and with one another
while engaged in the process of learning. In order to more fully understand the
underlying theoretical framework of this study, a short analysis of competing frameworks
is presented and explored briefly in the following section.
Competing Theoretical Frameworks
Whereas the concept of constructivism was selected as a lens from which to view
the research process in this project, the accumulated data, and their analyses, other lenses
might also have been utilized to frame the research question and subsequent research
activities. In that the research question sought to determine changes in learner
interactions due to the introduction of educational technology into the learning
environment, two such competing frameworks for consideration could be grounded in the
concepts of organizational culture and change, and systems thinking.
Organizational Culture and Change.
Organizational theorist Edgar Schein concluded that an organization’s culture
could be defined as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration” (Schein, 1992, p. 12).
Such cultural assumptions come to be “considered valid and…taught to new members as
the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems" (p. 12). Schein
proposed that these assumptions were primarily tacit – readily understood to members of
the culture while yet unspoken and imperceptible to outsiders. Attempts to change the
basic assumptions of an organization or culture (teaching methods, for example) are,
according to Schein, “difficult, time consuming, and highly anxiety provoking” (pp. 26-
21
27). Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1997), applied Schein’s concepts to changes in
schools while considering how teachers adopt new methods in order to effectively
integrate technology into their teaching:
Teachers enter the profession with deeply held notions about how to conduct
school – they teach as they were taught. If these beliefs are commonly held and
help teachers negotiate the uncertainty of work in schools, no wonder teachers are
reticent to adopt practices that have not stood the test of time. (p. 36)
Argyris (1999) presented additional insight in understanding organizational
learning and cultures, and found that individual human beings hold two types of theories
of action: “There is the one that they espouse. It is usually expressed in the form of stated
beliefs and values. Then there is the theory that they actually use.” (p. 56) Whether
considering change within industry or change within education, organizational leaders
must be aware of these espoused theories and theories-in-use. New skills can be acquired
and eventually become new theories-in-use, but often contain elements of the original
behavior. Argyris maintained that the role of leadership in organizational learning was
critical, for “in the final analysis, the subordinates’ learning will be reinforced or
extinguished by the actions of their superiors. As both levels learn a new theory-in-use –
hence can produce new actions – they necessarily also produce new learning systems” (p.
88).
The concepts presented in understanding organizational culture and change, e.g.
basic assumptions and theories-in-use, could be applied to classroom decisions made by
teachers as they plan for and deliver instruction. The utilization of educational technology
22
and perceived levels of implementation might serve to provide a critical perspective of
teaching practices and beliefs of individual teachers.
Systems Thinking
Senge (1994), defined systems thinking as a “conceptual framework, a body of
knowledge and tools that has been developed…to make the full patterns clearer, and to
help us see how to change them effectively” (p. 7). Examining events from a broad
perspective in order to determine any observable patterns in seemingly unrelated events –
examining an individual part in the context of the whole – can be a useful tool in
examining how individual or isolated decisions may impact an organization.
Eight systems archetypes were proposed and described by Senge (1994), and were
intended to assist in the identification and understanding of patterns in related events
within an organization. The archetype presented as limits to growth could be utilized to
investigate changes in the learning environment within this research due to the
introduction of educational technology. Within the limits to growth archetype, the
process of organizational growth or acceleration eventually slows and may indeed come
to a stop due to a balancing process imposed by barriers to growth. Senge proposed that
growth within the organization would continue only as the organization was successful in
removing “the source of limitation” (Senge, 1994, p. 380).
The concept of mental models was also developed by Senge (1994) and Senge, et
al. (2000). Mental models were defined as “our theories about the way the world works
which influence our actions, which in turn influence the interactions of the system”
(Senge et al., 2000, p. 83). Mental models impact how people interact with the world
23
around them, at times on an unconscious level, and Senge (1994) asserted that “mental
models are active – they shape how we act” (p. 175).
The concept of systems thinking could be applied to organizations of all types,
including schools. In that the current research was interested in changes in classroom
interactions between learners, identification of any barriers to growth (e.g. lack of
equipment or training) or mental models that impacted classroom decisions and behaviors
(e.g. perceptions of what school should be like) would potentially contribute to a better
understanding of the research setting.
Both of these bodies of theory – organizational culture and change, and systems
thinking – predominantly focus on the impact of change on systems, e.g. a school culture
or organizational structure. This research sought to investigate changes in learner
interactions at the micro-level of learners in individual classrooms and as such would
potentially benefit from a change theory perspective. In that the research sought to focus
on changes in how learners interact during the teaching and learning process, however, a
framework focused on teaching and learning theory provided a more thorough
understanding of the research context.
Constructivism as a Theoretical Framework
Merriam (1998) proposed that the theoretical framework of a research project is
“derived from the orientation or stance that you bring to your study…it is the lens
through which you view the world” (p. 45). As the focus of this study was the impact of
educational technology on learner interactions – particularly as a result of its integration
into the teaching process – the framework of constructivism provided a knowledge base
of a teaching and learning theory often associated with technology integration (Adams &
24
Burns, 1999; Ringstaff, Yocam, & Marsh, 1996; Sandholtz et al., 1997). Given the topic
and intent of study, the concept of constructivism thus provided a natural framework that
impacted all aspects of the research project – from literature explored, to research design,
to behaviors observed, to questions asked in the interview process.
The research began with a straightforward question to explore: What changes
occur in interactions between learners in elementary classrooms due to the integration of
technology into the learning environment? In looking specifically at how students and
teachers interact and react with one another and what changes, if any, occur in these
interactions due to the integration of educational technology, the research began with two
basic assumptions:
1. There are higher levels of student interaction and engagement in classrooms
and lessons with a constructivist focus (Bruner, 1961; Piaget, 1983), and
2. Educational technology utilized in classrooms leads to more constructivist
teaching and learning experiences (Ringstaff et al., 1996; Ross, Lowther, &
Morrison, 2001; Wenglinsky, 1998).
The first portion of this literature review has focused directly on developing and
supporting the theoretical framework. Inasmuch as the study sought to discover the
impact of technology on learner interactions, the literature review proceeds with an
investigation of the historical and current use of educational technology in schools,
beginning with a review of several dated yet often cited studies.
Longitudinal Studies
Critics have suggested the possibility that computer use may negatively impact
the social development of children (Shields & Behrman, 2000), and have maintained that
25
little research has been done to validate the impact of educational technology and
whether the perceived anecdotal benefits outweigh the significant costs of technology in
schools (Bloom, 1996; Cuban, 1997, 2001; Lockwood, 1998). Several major studies to
the contrary are repeatedly cited within the literature, however, and a summary of those
projects is presented in the following section.
National Assessment of Educational Progress Study in Mathematics
Wenglinsky (1998) conducted a research study of the 1996 National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics results, consisting of national samples of
fourth and eighth graders. The NAEP includes information on educational technology,
including the frequency of computer use at school, access to computers and frequency of
computer use in the home, professional development of mathematics teachers in
computer use, and the kinds of instructional uses of computers by mathematics teachers
and their students. Wenglinsky used a statistical analysis of the NAEP results using a
technique of structural equation modeling; the study tested a model of how various
technology characteristics might be related to various educational outcomes. The study
found that “technology does matter to academic achievement, with the important caveat
that whether it matters depends upon how it is used” (p. 32). Wenglinsky stated:
When computers are used to apply higher order concepts, and when teachers are
proficient enough in computer use to direct students toward productive uses more
generally, computers do seem to be associated with significant gains in
mathematics achievement, as well as an improved social environment in the
school. (p. 32)
26
It would appear from this research that teachers who utilize technology in a
constructivist environment are more successful in improving student achievement
through technology. Wenglinsky (1998) echoed this finding with a caution, stating that:
When technology is used properly, it can lead to gains in academic achievement
and positively influence the social environment of the school, reducing teacher
and student absenteeism and increasing morale. Yet it is important that the scope
of technology in schools be limited to those areas where it provides benefits, and
reduced in areas where it does not. Thus the notion of technology as a substitute
for conventional forms of instruction, often hoped for by technology advocates
and dreaded by technology critics, may overstate the case for technology use. (p.
34)
While the NAEP study was based on one particular evaluation of a national
assessment, other studies were found in the literature that provided long-term evaluations
of major technology initiatives. Descriptions of these studies begin with an exploration of
a significant statewide initiative in the state of Idaho during the mid-1990s.
Idaho Council for Technology in Learning
The Idaho Council for Technology in Learning (ICTL) was charged by the Idaho
State Legislature to evaluate the Idaho Technology Initiative of 1994, which provided for
initial and ongoing monies for the purchase and integration of technology into the K-12
public school systems (ICTL, 1999). The ICTL developed statewide performance
indicators to track progress and funds spent to achieve the indicators. The design of the
plan used statewide tests, research studies, student surveys, and technology examples to
measure the effectiveness of technology in the Idaho public schools. Goals evaluated by
27
the ICTL included technology integration, compatibility, teacher preparation,
collaboration with communities and businesses, technology systems enhancing the
efficient operation of Idaho schools, and training students to maintain technology.
This broad report looked specifically at the goals indicated above, and also
investigated trends in various regions of the state and reported descriptive examples
supporting regional and statewide assessments. In summary, the report found:
The benefits of technology in teaching and learning are clear: an increase in
academic achievement in reading, mathematics, language and core studies,
improved technology literacy, increased communication, well-trained, innovative
teaching, positive relationships with the community, more efficient operation of
schools, and technically qualified students ready to enter today’s workforce.
(ICTL, p. 35)
The report further recommended that the legislature continue funding for the
initiative for an additional five years, and that the ICTL continue to act as a governing
body for Idaho school districts in collecting and reporting data, assisting districts in the
refinement and expansion of technology integration, and maintaining accountability.
While the Idaho project and evaluation investigated a broad range of issues involving
technology, another project begun in the early 1990s was more specifically focused on
the acquisition and improvement of basic academic skills. This project in the state of
West Virginia is presented in summary below.
West Virginia Study
Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker, and Kottkamp (1999) reported on an eight year study
of the Basic Skills/Computer Education (BS/CE ) program that was authorized by the
28
state of West Virginia in 1989-90. The program provided every elementary school with
enough computer equipment to serve a grade cohort of students each year with three or
four computers, a printer, and a school-wide, networked server. The implementation
began with kindergarten students in 1990-91, and the next grade level was added each
year thereafter. The program also included intensive professional development and
software chosen from one or two vendors. Schools could choose which vendor and
whether to utilize a lab or distributed configuration.
The study found that “the initiative helped all children perform better, but the data
indicate that BS/CE helped the neediest children the most.” This study then added that
“children without computers at home made the biggest gains in (1) total basic skills, (2)
total language, (3) language expression, (4) total reading, (5) reading comprehension, and
(6) vocabulary” (p. 13) when provided access to these resources during the school day.
Also of interest was that students who had access to BS/CE computers in their classrooms
did significantly better than students who were taught with BS/CE equipment in lab
settings. Mann et al. (1999) posited that “part of the explanation for BS/CE’s success is
the defined focus of its implementation” (p. 14).
Due to the age of these studies and continual evolution of instructional
technology, the primary focus of the aforementioned research was on technology
programs grounded in Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI), Computer-Based Instruction
(CBI), and Integrated Learning Systems (ILS) formats. The scope of these forms of
educational technology was primarily focused on using computers as a tutor, e.g. learning
from technology (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002), while additional studies followed a decided
shift in technology integration. Such a shift in teaching practice included an evolutionary
29
process that moved toward a constructivist orientation while integrating educational
technology.
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow
Within the constraints of these systems, and primarily due to the birth of the
internet, teachers began to experiment with more project-based, student-driven, and
technology-rich instruction. The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) initiative that
began in 1986 served as a springboard to move away from drill-and-practice forms of
CAI toward experimentation with a constructivist perspective. ACOT teachers reported
“the changes they had instituted had a positive impact on their students, including
increased engagement and motivation and improvements in students’ ability to work
together” (Ringstaff, Yocam, & Marsh, 1996, p. 14).
Even within this high-profile project, the limitations of computer availability and
access proved to be a challenge to all but the most proficient educational technologists.
Not all teachers were successful in their efforts to change from traditional modes of
teaching, at times abandoning the project altogether. Research findings and reflections on
ACOT experiences found that teachers went through a number of developmental stages
when attempting fundamental changes in pedagogy; traditional beliefs and practices were
replaced as they progressed through these stages, and the research found that it was
“critical that…working environments be supportive” (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz,
1990b, p. 8). These pioneering teachers envisioned a day when students would use and be
responsible for mobile computers accessing the internet through a wireless network,
along with large-screen multi-media capability infused into these classrooms of the future
(Stuebing, Celsi, & Cousineau, 1994).
30
Laptop Computers
The ACOT teachers’ dream of mobile computing came of age with the advent of
the laptop computer. As laptop programs have been implemented, schools have replaced
aging desktop computers with laptops and sought to provide a computer for every
student. At times this has been accomplished with a classroom set of laptops that could be
shared between multiple classrooms in a school, while at other times a handful of laptops
have been provided to multiple classrooms. The ultimate goal for technology advocates
continues to be a 1:1 ratio of laptops to students as schools seek to move from students
learning from technology to students learning with technology (Ringstaff & Kelley,
2002).
Several major studies of laptop computers were found in the literature. Rockman
ET AL (1998) conducted an evaluation of four schools from across the nation
participating in the “Anytime, Anywhere Learning” Program (AAL ) that was sponsored
by the Microsoft Corporation. This research served to evaluate one of the pioneering
attempts of one-to-one laptop computing in schools. In studying the potential for this
level of access to dramatically impact constructivist learning and teaching, Rockman ET
AL found:
Laptop students engage in more collaborative work. Their assignments provide
them with frequent opportunities to locate, analyze, interpret and communicate
information. They apply active learning strategies and critical thinking skills
when completing school tasks and when considering real-world problems.
Teachers engage in less lecturing and spend more time consulting with students to
facilitate independent learning. (p. 32)
31
The study also found that laptop students spent more time in school-related work
outside of school, were more frequently engaged in classroom activities, were more often
engaged in collaborative projects with other students, and spent a great deal more time
using their laptops for the writing and editing process than any other application. Students
were also reported to display higher quality presentation and communication skills.
Teachers indicated that “the laptops encourage more problem-solving and critical
thinking by students, in part because laptops provide students with a large number of
choices that, in turn, demand advanced decision making skills” (Rockman ET AL, 1998,
p. 48).
An additional study of the AAL program was conducted in a Michigan school
district (Ross, Lowther, & Morrison, 2001). As opposed to the previously cited study’s
focus on only one-to-one laptop learning, this evaluation sought to compare the
classrooms that had 1:1 ratios (laptop students) to those classrooms where students shared
laptops in a 5:1 ratio (computer-extended [CE] students). As in the case of the Rockman
ET AL study, Ross et al. reported that teachers in laptop classrooms “increased their
emphasis on higher-level learning in the classroom, project-based learning, or
interactions with parents and students as a result of participating in the Laptop program”
(p. 7). Although integration of subject areas was seen less frequently in laptop classrooms
than in computer-extended classrooms, the use of technology as a tool for instruction was
more frequently observed in laptop classrooms. Teachers in laptop classrooms also
agreed that participation in the laptop program “increased students’ writing and reading
skills…interest in learning, ability to work with other students, and…resulted in students
having greater research skills, improved writing skills, greater interest in school, and
32
greater self-confidence” (pp. 7-8). The researchers concluded that while significant
differences in student achievement were not observed between the two groups, there was
“no question that the Laptop students were far superior to CE students in their computer
skills and usage of technology for learning” (p. 11), and that “full access to computers in
the classroom, whether or not there is access at home, is what drives curriculum and
learning most substantively” (p. 12).
Russell, Bebell, and Higgins (2004) studied yet another variation on laptop
implementation in their research of a Massachusetts school. Four classrooms were
provided with permanent one-to-one laptop access, while five other classrooms shared a
mobile laptop cart on a weekly rotating basis. In effect, all students had one-to-one access
at some point, but the rotating classrooms would only have the opportunity every few
weeks.
Russell et al. (2004) reaffirmed information gleaned from the previously cited
studies. Students in one-to-one classrooms were more often observed working
individually, and teachers reported that, although the laptop classrooms were larger, they
were more able to individualize instruction for their students. The research concluded:
When full versus shared access to laptops is provided, technology use for a
variety of academic purposes increases significantly. In addition, student
engagement increases, the amount of time students spend writing increases, and
classroom interactions between students and teachers change. (p. 14)
One-to-one laptop initiatives have continued to surface in recent years, often
focused on entire school districts or even statewide projects. In the Henrico County
Public Schools of Virginia, for example, 25,000 middle and high school students and
33
teachers received laptop computers as a part of a major technology initiative. An
evaluation of this project by SRI International (Zucker & McGhee, 2005) reported that
“the majority of teachers found the laptops to be especially helpful in affording them
greater flexibility and versatility for professional and instructional purposes,” while
students “reported that the laptop helped them manage and organize their work inside and
outside of class” (p.26).
The Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) began in 2002, providing
wireless laptop computers to seventh and eighth grade students and their teachers across
the state. Silvernail and Lane (2004) reported that teachers perceived students with
laptops “are more organized, they do more work, and that their understanding improves”
(p. 21). Significant improvement was observed among at-risk students, as teachers cited
that “attendance and behavior has improved, along with their motivation, engagement,
and class participation” (p. 22). MLTI is reported to have had a significant impact on the
learning environment as teachers reported using the laptops “a great deal in developing
lesson plans, and in conducting research for lesson plans and instruction. Likewise,
students use them to conduct research and complete class assignments” (p. 33).
The governor of New Hampshire proposed the Technology Promoting School
Excellence (TPSE) program in 2003, which was directed at seventh grade students and
teachers at six of the state’s neediest schools. Bebell (2005) found that “teachers quickly
altered their existing practices in the 1:1 environment by increasing their use of
technology for planning, research, preparation as well as communication, adapting
lessons for special needs students, and general classroom instruction” (p. 18). The survey
utilized for this research also concluded that teachers shared a “strong belief that the
34
TPSE program had positive impacts on teaching and learning for all types of students”
and that “students of all ability levels demonstrated improvements in both working
independently as well as collaboratively with their peers” (p. 33).
Evaluations of laptop initiatives continue to surface as more and more schools,
districts, and states seek to provide one-to-one laptop computing to their students and
teachers. Positive results are being reported on increased student achievement,
attendance, motivation, and engagement (Jeroski, 2005; Laptops for Learning Task
Force, 2004; Lemke & Martin, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). Pitler, Flynn, and Gaddy
(2004) have even proposed that one-to-one laptop initiatives are approaching a tipping
point – where “the exception becomes the rule and a new technology becomes
commonplace” (p. 6).
While research may support the infusion of laptop technology in schools with a
goal of providing students anytime, anywhere access, the significant costs of computer
hardware acquisition and maintenance continues to challenge schools across the nation
(Rogers, 1999). The digital native of the 21st Century, however, will continually question
how districts can afford not to fund such initiatives (Pitler et al., 2004, p. 6). Recent
developments in handheld computing have resulted in devices with a standard operating
system and markedly reduced costs as compared to laptop computers, providing a lowercost alternative to schools and districts seeking to embrace the Digital Age.
Laptop Word Processors and Handheld Computers
One such device that emerged in the last decade was the AlphaSmart laptop word
processor. While less advanced and incapable of most computer applications, the
AlphaSmart was introduced as a word processor that would allow one-to-one
35
accessibility for students. In a study similar to the previously mentioned research,
Russell, Bebell, Cowan, and Corbelli (2002) compared classrooms with one-to-one
access to classrooms with shared resources in one Massachusetts elementary school.
Russell et al. found that the 1:1 ratio of the word processors “led to changes in the way
each teacher thought about and used technology with their class” (p. 18), and that
students saw word processors as “a primary writing tool…having unfettered access to
their own AlphaSmart also changed the way they approached writing and according to
their teachers, nearly universally improved the quality of their work” (p. 19).
While the AlphaSmart’s capability was confined to word processing, the
researchers found that the 1:1 ratio led to students increasing their use of laptop and
desktop computers as well. The increased use of word processors assisted students in
being more comfortable with other available technology. This in turn “decreased the
amount of time teachers spent providing students with technical support…increased use
of technology also led to an increase in peer conferencing and individual instruction as
well as a decrease in whole group instruction” (Russell et al., 2002, p. 25). Changes in
approaches to teaching and learning were thus impacted by a relatively limited
technology that allowed the concept of electronic learning to develop.
Recently, the concept of electronic learning (e-learning) has been modified to
become mobile learning (m-learning). Milrad (2003) suggested that handheld devices
were emerging as one of the most “promising technologies for supporting learning and
particularly collaborative learning scenarios. These technologies give the possibility to
move away from the stand-alone computer, thus allowing interaction with several devices
and making information accessible through a wireless connection to a server” (p. 2).
36
Milrad also posited that the potential of handheld computers to further advance
constructivist teaching and learning in classrooms is profound, yet mobile and wireless
technologies currently represent a low percentage of the technologies used in educational
activities. Research of these applications is limited in the literature, but two major
initiatives were identified and are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Pasnik, Hess, and Heinze (2001) evaluated a pilot program utilizing handheld
computers (Compaq iPaqs) and a software and network resource created by Mindsurf
Networks. While the full pilot was limited to two schools in Maryland, an additional 86
schools across the country joined the study in a more limited fashion as Schools of
Innovation. The handhelds were provided to ensure one-to-one access for students, and
students in some schools were allowed to take the handhelds home after school. This
around-the-clock access was determined to prove very significant, as “teachers whose
students took the handheld computers home reported over 75 percent more types of
formal classroom uses than those whose students kept the handheld computers at school”
(p. 15). Such uses included completing homework assignments, collaborating on
assignments, and e-reader activities, which were reported 50 to 100 percent more often in
those classes with full-time access.
Attributes of educational technology mentioned previously, e.g. student
engagement, motivation, etc., were observed in this research as well as the phenomenon
of students and teachers learning new methods of learning and interacting with one
another. An additional facet that has emerged with handheld computers is the ability to
beam documents to other handheld users. The beaming application was found to
significantly increase the amount of feedback teachers were able to provide to students
37
about their work product. Teachers also used the handhelds for formative assessment
purposes as they guided the instructional process, and the majority of teachers reported
that the handheld computer made “assessment and evaluation of student work more
convenient, by allowing the teacher to carry student work in the handheld computer”
(Pasnik et al., p. 18). The study also found that the Mindsurf software tools could
enhance the constructivist teaching practice of inquiry-based learning while supporting
more traditional pedagogy as well. Teachers participating in survey instruments indicated
that the Mindsurf program assisted students in learning how to learn, and offered students
“self-directed learning opportunities” (p. 23).
Additional research was conducted to evaluate the Palm Education Pioneers
(PEP) Program, implemented in over 100 classrooms across the country (Vahey &
Crawford, 2002). While the study examined a diversity of school sites, it admittedly took
place with teachers who were forward thinking and technology-oriented. Many of the
previously found advantages of technology-rich environments were duplicated in this
study, with teachers consistently reporting high levels of student engagement and interest
as the handheld computers were integrated into the instructional program.
Although PEP teachers from a wide range of curricular areas reported similar
results, perhaps none were as enthusiastic about handheld computer applications as
science teachers. Well over 90% of teachers surveyed reported that handheld computers
dramatically improved the quality of learning activities in science classrooms. Vahey and
Crawford (2003) postulated that such enthusiasm was “likely due to a number of factors,
including the mobility of handheld computers, the availability of calculators and
38
spreadsheets for data analysis, and the availability of handheld computer peripherals,
such as probes and sensors” (p. 10).
Higher levels of constructivist teaching methods were observed in many
classrooms, particularly in open-ended writing tasks and inquiry-based science activities.
It was noted that a number of traditional teachers found comfortable applications as well,
notably the use of multiple-choice quizzes and flash cards. Additional benefits were
observed in the teacher surveys, as teachers reported that the use of handheld computers
in their classrooms provided a range of benefits for their students, including “increased
access to and proficiency with technology as well as more complex and subtle impacts,
such as increased self-directedness in learning and increased collaboration and
cooperation” (Vahey & Crawford, 2002, p. 13).
Further evidence of a transition to constructivist pedagogy was found in students
taking the initiative to develop ways to use handhelds for learning. Vahey and Crawford
(2002) found that some teachers reported “allowing students to participate in developing
the integration of handhelds enhanced the learning partnership between teachers and
students…giving students a role in the integration of handheld technology gave teachers
and students a greater sense of shared mission” (p. 28).
Research continues to grow and support the use of handheld computer technology
in schools. Tatar, Roschelle, Vahey, and Penuel (2003), for example, proposed taking the
concept of m-learning a step further, in that classroom learning (or c-learning) with
handhelds is grounded in face-to-face participation, building on “constructivist learning
paradigms that employ hands-on projects and cooperative learning groups” (p. 30). An
additional study of the PEP project (van 't Hooft & Diaz, 2002) stated that “handhelds
39
were easy to use and enabled them to engage in a variety of projects involving data
collection and analysis, writing, and sharing/collaborating through beaming” (p. 11), and
Rudy (2003) discovered that handheld use “positively impacted teaching and learning as
evidenced by changes in curricula, instructional planning, and student learning” (p. 3).
A dramatic increase in the availability and use of educational technology has been
observed over the past two decades. Wireless networks, laptop computers, and handheld
computers have definitively altered the landscape of 21st Century classrooms. As
indicated in the previously cited studies however, a deciding factor in the productive use
of such resources lies within the beliefs and practices of the individual classroom teacher.
Teacher Beliefs and Practices
From the beginnings of educational technology use in classrooms, a clear
connection has been made between the successful use of technology and a teacher’s clear
understanding of how such a tool fits into their own pedagogical beliefs and instructional
practices. From the variety of technology applications found in today’s classrooms, the
individual teacher’s “pedagogical beliefs and values play an important part in shaping
technology-mediated learning opportunities” (Cox et al., 2003, p. 4). Successful
implementation of technology is also more likely “when teachers are highly reflective
about their own teaching practice and goals, in the sense that they consciously use
technology in a manner consistent with their pedagogical beliefs” (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon,
& Byers, 2002, p. 492). Gibson (2000) made an argument for the transformational use of
technology leading to the development of a new pedagogy of learning: while technology
itself does not necessarily change the learning process, it can perhaps be a catalyst for
change in educational contexts where “new perspectives, new thinking and new practice
40
are possible” (p. 51). Additional and more recent research has reinforced that an
individual teacher’s belief about the positive impact of educational technology for
students is the strongest predictor that a teacher will utilize technology in the delivery of
instruction and in student use of technology for creating products during class time
(O'Dwyer, Russell, & Bebell, 2004b).
Whether educational technology is utilized as an electronic worksheet or woven
deeply into daily instruction, “the integration approach used by teachers depends on the
teachers’ beliefs about the role of the computer in instruction, and the instructional
objectives they attempt to meet through integration” (Pisapia et al., 2000, p. 29). As
teachers move toward more integrated approaches of technology use, they are often
challenged to change their core beliefs about teaching and instruction. Replacing the
beliefs that govern teacher behavior thus “becomes critically important in changing
educational practice in schools” (Sandholtz et al., 1997, p. 36). Teachers involved in the
ACOT program, for example, were found to begin using technology primarily to
supplement traditional instruction, but throughout the undertaking they began to “view
learning as an active, creative, and socially interactive process” (Dwyer, Ringstaff, &
Sandholtz, 1990a, p. 9). A decidedly constructivist bias developed during this decadelong project, while researchers noted the promising practices achieved during the change
process grew slowly as innovative teachers dealt with structures where “cultural norms
continue to support lecture-based instruction, subject-centered curriculum, and
measurement-driven accountability” (Dwyer et al., 1990a, p. 2). Dwyer (1994) noted,
however, that a transformation took place in the learning cultures of the ACOT
classrooms as “teachers’ instructional beliefs and practices underwent an evolution” (p.
41
8), with teachers’ personal use of the technology resulting in improvement in the
competency of students.
The integration of educational technology has received extensive attention in the
research to date, and researchers have found that a transformation in the culture of
classrooms takes place only when technology is used “in a seamless manner to support
and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning…it is not
something one does separately; it is part of the daily activities taking place in the
classroom” (Dias, 1999, p. 11). In addition to becoming an integral part of a teacher’s
instructional toolkit, such transformations also find that “teachers are using technology
more to support their own professional practice” (Martin, Kanaya, & Crichton, 2004, p.
25). The journey to a fully integrated approach is not an easy one, as many teachers have
found that “integrating technology into the education systems and using it in ways that
increase student learning and achievement are far more complex tasks than expected”
(Lemke & Coughlin, 1998, p. 8).
Teacher comfort with and knowledge of computer hardware and applications has
certainly had an impact on the ability to reach high levels of integration, although
teachers with average computer skills – along with learning how to at times relinquish
control to students – have been found “to integrate technology into their classrooms
effectively because they recognized the importance of it as a tool for learning” (Heath et
al., 2000, p. 78). The effective use and integration of technology has indeed been
observed to occur in a number of stages as teachers have learned how to utilize the tools
at their disposal (Dwyer et al., 1990b).
42
As teachers in the ACOT project participated in training and application of these
tools, researchers consistently found that new patterns of teaching and learning were
emerging throughout the ACOT sites. Through the identified stages of Entry, Adoption,
Adaptation, Appropriation, and Invention, “text-based curriculum delivered in a lecturerecitation-seatwork mode [was] first strengthened through the use of technology and then
gradually replaced by far more dynamic learning experiences for students” (Dwyer et al.,
1990a). Progression through these stages was accentuated by a number of factors,
including mentors who were further along in the process, opportunities for personal
reflection, and encouragement for teachers to question their beliefs about teaching and
learning (Apple Computer, 1995).
Additional studies have adapted the ACOT developmental continuum in their
research. The Milken Family Foundation, for example, reduced the number of stages to
Entry, Adaptation, and Transformation, which were based on the Adoption, Adaptation
and Appropriation stages of the ACOT research (Coughlin & Lemke, 1999). Such
modifications have found their way into the work of various organizations seeking to
assist schools in planning for professional development that supports the strengthening of
teachers’ educational technology integration. The state of North Dakota, for example,
utilizes the Professional Competency Continuum (http://pcc.hprtec.org/index.php3), a
tool based on the Milken research. The use of this instrument provides educators an
opportunity to assess their technology integration knowledge and skill level while
providing resources with which to plan for future learning. Advanced Learning
Technologies (ALTec), a division of the University of Kansas Center for Research on
Learning, developed and maintains the ProfilerPro online assessment tool
43
(http://profilerpro.com), again with the goal of supporting educators’ self-assessment
while also planning for and measuring the effects of professional development programs.
Other researchers have applied the concept of an integration continuum in
understanding the impact of educational technology on schools in Western Australia
(Newhouse, Trinidad, & Clarkson, 2002b). The five-stage continuum of Inaction,
Investigation, Adaptation, Integration, and Transformation is not unlike the previously
cited works, yet provides an additional concept. Newhouse et al. determined that between
the third and fourth stages (Adaptation and Integration) lies a critical use border. At this
point the researchers found that educational technology is utilized within constructivist
learning environments and “exploited wherever possible…many learning experiences
would either not be possible or be inadequately provided without the use of computers”
(p. 9).
The process that occurs in the integration of educational technology has been
observed to be difficult and challenging work. Researchers have repeatedly found that, in
addition to having the appropriate tools at their disposal, teachers must also feel
supported, free to take risks, and be provided with ongoing professional development
opportunities to strengthen their skills (Coughlin & Lemke, 1999; Dwyer et al., 1990b;
Newhouse et al., 2002b; Rogers, 1999; Zhao et al., 2002). The journey to full integration,
then, is most likely evolutionary than revolutionary, and one where teachers will
“experience more success and less frustration if they take small, but progressive steps
toward change” (Zhao et al., 2002, p. 512).
The research outlined in this review of the literature served to provide a strong
foundation of the theoretical framework of constructivism, an overview of over two
44
decades of research on the impact of educational technology in schools, and an
exploration of the challenges inherent in adopting such technologies in today’s
classrooms. The use of educational technology in classrooms has evolved from an initial
focus of learners interacting with specific computerized content (often disconnected from
the remainder of an individual teacher’s instructional design) to a deeply interwoven
instructional tool capable of significantly extending instruction and providing
opportunities for learners to critically interact with content and one another. The
information gleaned from this review assisted in determining the direction of the research
and provided a deeper understanding of the data collected during the research project.
Additional research informed the methodological direction of the project, and is
presented in the following chapter.
45
CHAPTER THREE
Research Design and Methodology
The literature reviewed in the previous chapter served to provide a foundation for
this study and an understanding of educational technology and related issues. Additional
literature informed the methodological choices for this research, and the specific research
design is explored in detail in this chapter. The reported study took place within a single
elementary school and sought to address the following research question: What changes
occur in interactions between learners in elementary classrooms due to the integration of
technology into the learning environment? In that the researcher sought to discover
patterns in the interactions of learners in the elementary classroom environment, a logical
choice for the research design chosen to guide this study came from the naturalistic
research tradition, which allowed for the deep analysis of the phenomenon under study in
the context of a natural environment. A qualitative orientation to this project allowed for
such an approach through the collection of rich, in depth data, and through the
opportunity to regularly interact with, while simultaneously studying, the members of the
school culture. Working with and beside the participants throughout the data collection
process provided the opportunity for exercising flexibility in the research design as the
study evolved over the course of several months.
As opposed to quantitative research and its reliance upon predetermined
evaluation instruments, Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed that “naturalistic inquiry is
always carried out, logically enough, in a natural setting, since context is so heavily
implicated in meaning” (p. 187). The tradition of qualitative research relies on the
researcher, or human instrument, to be the primary source of data collection. With a
46
culture under study often fluid and changing, inquiry “demands a human instrument, one
fully adaptive to the indeterminate situation that will be encountered” (p. 187). The
qualitative research tradition often guides the research designs of studies found in school
settings, as the tradition allows the researcher to “enter and spend considerable time in
schools, families, neighborhoods, and other locales learning about educational
concerns...the data are collected on the premises and supplemented by the understanding
that is gained by being on location” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 4).
Research Site
The research site chosen for this study was a Kindergarten through 5th grade
elementary school located in the central United States. The school district has become
increasingly urban in recent years, with the number of minority and low-income students
rising steadily. The research site, however, was located in a well-established, relatively
affluent area of the district, and the school’s demographics were quite varied from the
district averages, as noted below:
District Average (2005-06)
Research Site (2005-06)
Caucasian
43%
70%
African American
22%
16%
Hispanic
21%
3%
American Indian
3%
2%
Asian
5%
1%
Multi-Racial
6%
8%
Low Income
67%
33%
47
Approximately 24% of the school’s students ride the bus to and from school, and
the school maintained over 96% student average daily attendance in 2004-05. The school
employs 27.0 full time equivalent (FTE) certified and classified staff, with an average of
12 years experience; the school staff is predominantly female (88.9%) and Caucasian
(92.6%).
The school enjoyed a rich relationship with technology for a number of years, and
has continued to expand the presence of educational technology with SMART Board
interactive whiteboards, digital video projectors, and additional desktop workstations for
student and teacher use. The majority of desktop workstations were multi-media capable
Windows-based personal computers running the Windows XP Professional operating
system. A number of older workstations were utilized in classrooms as well, primarily for
word processing and internet access.
The school was awarded a $35,000 technology grant from the school district’s
Instructional Technology Department in the spring of 2004. The purpose of the grant was
to provide classroom sets of handheld computers (a combination of Palm Tungsten E and
Palm Zire 71 units) for students in first through fifth grade, other peripherals (probes,
digital cameras, etc.) to supplement the school’s existing hardware and educational
technology program, and additional professional development for school staff members.
Since winning the grant, the school has also acquired a mobile wireless Macintosh iBook
laptop computer lab, allowing a 1:1 ratio of computers to students while the teacher is
utilizing the resource. Training and implementation commenced during the 2004-05
school year and is ongoing as the school staff learns how to integrate these resources into
daily curriculum and instructional practice.
48
Data Collection Strategies
The reported qualitative research featured the concept of emergent design
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002), which allowed the research to unfold naturally –
guided along the way by the process of research and the researcher as human instrument.
This emergent design was further explained by Creswell (2003), who noted that “aspects
emerge during a qualitative study…research questions may change and be refined as the
inquirer learns what to ask and to whom it should be asked” (p. 181). While the research
question developed prior to the study commencing did not change, adjustments to the
research process were made to respond to the emerging data. For example, the initial
observation instrument was revised to better respond to the research context, and an
exploration of the roles of teaching philosophy and pedagogy were not originally
anticipated yet found to be critical in making meaning of the data.
In the search for meaning within the research context, the study began with the
assumption that nothing was trivial, and that everything had the “potential of being a clue
that might unlock a more comprehensive understanding” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 5)
of what was being studied. Strategies that supported discovery in this emergent design
included observations of the natural setting, interviews of participants in the culture, and
analysis of documents produced by the culture under study. Patton (2002) noted positive
attributes within these methods, as “observations take place in real-world settings and
people are interviewed with open-ended questions in places and under conditions that are
comfortable for and familiar to them” (p. 39). The primary data collection methods of
qualitative research selected to guide this study were observation of the research setting,
personal interviews, focus group interviews, and document review. Observations of the
49
participants provided firsthand knowledge of the culture being studied while interviews
provided an opportunity to discuss and more deeply explore the thoughts and
perspectives of the participants while searching for a deeper understanding of interactions
seen in prior observations. The review of pertinent documents provided further
opportunity to better understand the adult participants in the study.
The research was conducted in a single elementary school in order to discover and
better understand learner interactions in elementary classrooms and the impact of
educational technology on those interactions. The researcher, who was concurrently
serving as the school principal of the research site, selected a research design that
followed a case study format, which Merriam (1998) stated was capable of gaining “an
in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved” (p. 19).
According to Merriam, the interest in case study research is in “process rather than
outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than
confirmation” (p. 19). As studying all classrooms within the school would have been
beyond the scope of this study, the research was limited to three distinct classrooms
within the school. Case study research allowed the delimitation of the object of study to
specific persons, programs, and classrooms as the researcher gathered “as much
information about the problem as possible with the intent of analyzing, interpreting, or
theorizing about the phenomenon” (Merriam, 1998, p. 38).
As noted above, this case study was conducted in three separate classrooms in the
same school. Yin (2003) referred to this format as a multiple-case design, and noted that
a common example of the multiple-case study was “a study of school innovations…in
which individual schools [or classrooms within a school] adopt some innovation” (p. 46).
50
The three classrooms were selected due to their perceived differences in teaching practice
and technology integration, and thus were utilized to predict “contrasting results but for
predictable reasons” (p. 47).
Research Participants
Due to the timeframe of the research and scope of the research site, it was not
possible to observe all classrooms or conduct interviews with all members of the culture.
The researcher employed purposeful sampling to select classrooms and interview
subjects. Subjects were selected with purposeful sampling based on their ability to offer a
unique and informed perspective in regard to the phenomenon under study. Subjects of
this type were described by Patton (2002) as being "information rich and illuminative,”
and as such offered “useful manifestations of the phenomenon of interest” (p. 40).
Random sampling would have been appropriate if the goal of the research had been to
generalize findings to a larger population. The study, however, sought to analyze the
interactions of learners in the elementary classroom environment and the impact of
educational technology on those interactions; deliberate and purposeful selection of
classrooms and interview participants allowed the researcher to “learn a great deal about
issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry” (Patton, 2002, p. 230).
The researcher served as a school principal for over fifteen years and as such was
trained and experienced in the observation of classrooms, teachers, and students. In this
role of expert observer, the researcher purposefully selected three classroom teachers who
had been observed to have distinct teaching styles as well as displaying varying levels of
comfort with and use of educational technology. The selected classrooms consisted of:
51
•
A classroom led by a teacher using limited technology in the scope of a more
traditional classroom setting;
•
A classroom led by a teacher interested in and attempting to regularly
incorporate technology into her teaching; and
•
A classroom led by a teacher pursuing full integration and immersion of
technology into instruction.
The classrooms were all intermediate classes housing students in 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade, and
ranged in size from 19 to 27 students. More details of the student makeup of the
individual classrooms are provided later in this report.
The research commenced with observations approximately one month into the
school year, which consisted of informal, drop-in observations as well as formal,
extended periods of observation. These observations assisted in identifying key
participants for further data collection through personal interviews and focus group
interviews. The purposeful selection of participants allowed for understanding the
perceptions of the participants related to the research topic within the context of the
study, and provided focused data directly related to the research question and purpose.
All participants were required to sign an informed consent (or student assent/parental
consent for minor participants) approved by the Wichita State University Institutional
Review Board. Applicable consent forms submitted to the Board are included in the
Appendices. Specific data collection strategies are explained in more detail below.
Observations
The observation of interactions in elementary classrooms played a primary and
salient role in the study. Observations allowed the opportunity to “notice things that [had]
52
become routine to the participants themselves “(Merriam, 1998, p. 95), and assisted in
understanding the context of the culture under study. Data gained through observation
assisted in understanding the classrooms and research topic “to an extent not entirely
possible using only the insights of others obtained through interviews” (Patton, 2002, pp.
22-23). Initial fieldnotes during informal observations were recorded on a Palm T|X
handheld computer using a FileMaker Mobile database, which included a number of
drop-down menus for commonly observed phenomena in addition to a text field for the
recording of short descriptions of salient observations. After synchronizing to a desktop
computer version of FileMaker Pro, these “jottings” (Emerson et al., 1995, p. 20) were
greatly expanded to include a complete description of the observation. The longer, formal
observations were documented on a laptop computer using Microsoft Word, which
allowed for more detail to be recorded as the observation was taking place. Fieldnotes
were both descriptive and reflective in nature, and provided a written record of the
sounds, sights, thoughts, and experiences observed during the course of “collecting and
reflecting on the data” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 110). Fieldnotes were also utilized to
provide a thick description of the learning environments under study; observed
interactions were described and included in the data analysis process, informing the
establishment of themes and categories that guided the analysis. Observed behaviors and
interactions also assisted in guiding the participant interviews that followed.
The researcher, as the instructional leader in the school under study, had
consistently visited classrooms, interacted with students and teachers, and participated in
classroom activities prior to the research project. While some observations of a formal
nature consisted of little interaction with the research participants, most interactions
53
followed the participant observer tradition as the research commenced. Merriam (1998)
found that the participant observer “sees things firsthand and uses his or her own
knowledge and expertise in interpreting what is observed rather than relying upon onceremoved accounts from interviews…observation makes it possible to record behavior as
it is happening” (p. 96). Patton (2002) also noted that the primary purpose of
observational data is to describe the setting, the people who participated in the setting, the
activities that took place in the setting, and the meanings of what was observed from the
perspectives of the participants. Observations served as a foundation for subsequent
interviews with the research participants designed to understand the perspectives of the
observed interactions.
The classroom research began with what Spradley (1980) called grand tour
observations. Such observations allowed the researcher to observe and describe in detail
the spaces, actors, and activities being studied, and assisted in providing a thick, rich
description of the research site. The grand tour observations were supplemented with
mini-tour observations that focused on a “much smaller unit of experience” (Spradley, p.
79). The observations assisted in understanding not only the social situation of the
classrooms, but the culture as well, which Spradley described as “the patterns of
behavior, artifacts, and knowledge that people have learned or created” (p. 86). Further
observational data were gathered from a variety of observations. For example, informal
observations occurred naturally as a result of the participant observer status of the
researcher and were typically of shorter duration and unscheduled, while formal
observations were prearranged and approximately 45 to 60 minutes in length.
54
To supplement and enhance the understanding of the research setting gained
through participant observation, other methodological devices were needed to elicit
additional information from the participants. Surveys or questionnaires, for example,
could gather a great deal of information about public attitudes and orientation, and are
typically useful in making generalizations from a sample to a larger population (Babbie,
2004; Creswell, 2003). The intent of this study, however, was to gain a clearer
understanding of the research context with an exploration of the interactions of the
research participants. For this purpose, interviews were utilized to supplement and extend
the understanding of the classroom observations, and played a significant role in the
study.
Personal Interviews
Interviews in qualitative research are utilized to “gather descriptive data in the
subjects’ own words so that the researcher can develop insights on how subjects interpret
some piece of the world" (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 94). The process of interviewing
members of the culture under study helps to “understand and put into a larger context the
interpersonal, social, and cultural aspects of the environment” (Erlandson, Harris,
Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 85). Personal as well as focus group interviews allow the
following of emerging lines of thought during the interview process and thus are not
constrained just to the specific answers that would be included on a standard survey
questionnaire. Consequently, interviews can assist in learning about the past, interpreting
present conditions, and predicting future events through the eyes of the participant
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
55
A combination of open-ended personal and group interviews therefore allowed a
thorough understanding of the classrooms being observed. In seeking data that would
answer the previously stated research question, the open-ended interview was structured
in such a way as to allow such data to emerge naturally in a conversational format.
To assist in the interview process, a standard interview guide was developed. The
process of using a standard, yet open-ended, interview guide provided “topics or subject
areas within which the interviewer [was] free to explore, probe, and ask questions that
[would] elucidate and illuminate that particular subject” (Patton, 2002, p. 342). The
interview guide set a focus for the interview and provided a general direction, while the
conversational format allowed for exploration of additional topics or themes that emerged
during the interview. Whereas such conversations would result in a deeper understanding
of the research site through the eyes of the interview subjects, personal interviews were
conducted with the three classroom teachers selected for the study. Initial interviews
provided an avenue to further explore the data gleaned from the classroom observations
as the individual teachers described their philosophical orientation, teaching practice, and
use of educational technology. Additional interviews were conducted following teacher
review of the preliminary findings, which allowed for further clarification and extension
of the data collected. The observation process assisted in identifying and refining the
specific questions and probes to be utilized in the interview protocol, and the selected
interview protocols are included in the Appendices.
Focus Group Interviews
An additional type of interview in qualitative research is the focus group, which is
“structured to foster talk among the participants about particular issues” (Bogdan &
56
Biklen, 2003, p. 101). Such group interviews typically consist of 7-10 people, follow a
standard, open-ended interview guide, and provide the opportunity for group members to
discuss issues relevant to the research topic. In that focus groups were conducted with
elementary school students, questions similar to those asked of teachers were included in
the interview protocol and worded in such a way as to be “participant friendly” but of
comparable design. The resultant discussions in the group interviews were “useful in
bringing the researcher into the world of the subjects” (Bogdan & Biklen, p. 100), and
were utilized “to get high-quality data in a social context where people can consider their
own views in the context of the views of others" (Patton, 2002, p. 335). As members of a
culture discuss a variety of topics, it is not unusual that their individual assumptions,
misconceptions, and ideas may be challenged or reinforced (Krueger & King, 1998).
Participants for focus group interviews were selected through purposeful
sampling and identified as members of the culture who were likely to share unique
perspectives on the research topic. Each focus group consisted of a “relatively
homogeneous group of people” (Patton, 2002, p. 335), and was conducted with selected
students from each of the three classrooms. The focus groups included members of the
Student Technology Leadership Team (STLT), a group of 4th and 5th grade students who
assist in maintaining technology and assisting teachers in classrooms. STLT students
applied for membership in this organization, and were required to have a minimum level
of understanding and willingness to learn how to support the technology program through
organization, inventory, and troubleshooting. As the “technology go-to” students in their
classrooms, STLT students provided a unique perspective on the impact of technology on
their interactions in the learning environment. Due to the relatively small size of the
57
school, each of the two older groups also included students who had been in one of the
other classrooms observed during the previous year.
Document Review
The review of salient documents can also assist the qualitative research process,
as documents “of all types can help the researcher uncover meaning, develop
understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research problem” (Merriam, 1998,
p. 133). Documents can serve as “sources of rich descriptions of how the people who
produced the materials think about their world” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 124), as well
as to provide “specific details to corroborate information from other sources” (Yin, 2003,
p. 87). Documents selected for review included technology self-assessments completed
by the teacher participants and teacher professional development portfolios.
Observations, personal and focus group interviews, and document review
provided a wealth of data for review. In order to more thoroughly understand their
relevance, all data collected throughout the study were submitted to detailed review and
analysis.
Data Analysis
Analysis of research data in a qualitative study is an ongoing process, one that
occurs throughout the data collection period. Lincoln and Guba (1985) described the
analysis process as “successive iterations of four elements: purposive sampling, inductive
analysis of the data obtained from the sample, development of grounded theory based on
the inductive analysis, and projection of next steps in a constantly emergent design” (pp.
187-188). As opposed to formulating theories prior to entering the research field, the
development of grounded theory “emphasizes steps and procedures for connecting
58
induction and deduction through the constant comparative method, comparing research
sites, doing theoretical sampling, and testing emergent concepts with additional
fieldwork” (Patton, 2002, p. 125). The constant comparative method of data analysis
allowed for the ongoing analyses of fieldnotes developed during observations and data
gathered through personal and group interviews; emerging themes were identified
throughout the data collection process and thus further guided the study (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003).
All observational fieldnotes, interviews, and focus groups were transcribed
verbatim. These transcripts were then unitized, a process that separated the data into
“single pieces of information that stand by themselves” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 203).
Documents were reviewed in a similar method of content analysis, described as a
“systematic procedure for describing the content of communications” (Merriam, 1998, p.
123), which attempted to “identify core consistencies and meanings” (Patton, 2002, p.
453) in the documents reviewed. Documents selected for review in this study included
teacher self-assessments of technology skills and their professional development
portfolio. Unitized data and salient information gleaned from the document review were
then entered into a FileMaker Pro database, which allowed for coding each unit of data
by categories that emerged during the research process; each categorized unit was then
assigned to a theme that developed through the sorting of data. These themes and
categories that emerged during data collection and subsequent analysis were then utilized
to describe the findings of the study.
While the quantitative research tradition depends upon the elements of validity,
reliability, and objectivity to ensure trustworthiness of the research, the qualitative
59
tradition provides “truth value through credibility, applicability through transferability,
consistency through dependability, and neutrality through confirmability” (Erlandson et
al., 1993, p. 132). The qualitative researcher strives to present his or her research in such
a manner that the research findings are “worth paying attention to…worth taking account
of” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290), with specific measures employed to ensure that the
results of the study are trustworthy. Lincoln and Guba (1985) explained that credibility is
established through such methods as prolonged engagement and persistent observation,
triangulation, peer debriefing, and member checking; transferability is established
through thick description of the research; and dependability and confirmability are both
established through the audit process.
Five primary methods were employed to ensure that the findings provided from
this study were trustworthy:
•
Member checks were conducted throughout the data collection process, which
entailed “taking data and tentative interpretations back to the people from
whom they were derived and asking them if the results are plausible”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 204). Interview responses were confirmed with
participants during and after the interview process. Observational fieldnotes
were shared with teacher participants throughout the study to confirm
researcher interpretation of observed interactions, and preliminary findings
were shared with teacher participants for review and additional clarification if
needed.
•
Triangulation of the data occurred by comparing units of data from a variety
of data sources. Erlandson et al. (1993) posited “data obtained directly from
60
the statements of individuals should be checked against observed behavior and
various records and documents. Different questions, different sources, and
different methods should be used to focus on equivalent sets of data” (p. 31).
Participant interviews, observational fieldnotes, researcher reflections, and
document content analysis all were utilized to confirm that emerging themes
and categories were not singleton occurrences but indeed were established
from a variety of sources.
•
A thick, rich description of the research process and the culture under study
has been provided in this research; such an effort sought to provide a
“thorough description of the context or setting within which the inquiry took
place and with which the inquiry was concerned” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.
362). A description of this type thus “enables observers of other contexts to
make tentative judgments about applicability of certain observations for their
contexts” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 33). The transfer of the results of this
study to other contexts, however, lies completely in the hands of the reader.
•
A peer debriefer was utilized as a sounding board throughout the course of the
research project to provide an “external check on the inquiry process”
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 301). The technique of peer debriefing served to
enhance the accuracy of the account by reviewing and asking questions about
the study in order for it to “resonate with people other than the researcher”
(Creswell, 2003, p. 196). The debriefer was well outside the context of the
study but familiar with the topic and research process. He provided
knowledgeable analysis of the materials and emerging design of the study,
61
listened to the researcher’s rationale, concerns, and ideas, and shared pertinent
feedback for refining the research process (Erlandson et al., 1993).
•
Finally, the researcher utilized an external auditor to review the research and
all its components to assist in ensuring the study’s trustworthiness. Yin (2003)
suggested that research should be conducted “as if someone were always
looking over your shoulder” (p. 38), and documented in such a way that an
auditor could arrive at the same results through repeating the research
procedures. Data reported throughout the final report were cross-referenced
with the raw data sources to ensure that no assertions were made without
supporting data (Erlandson et al., 1993). The external auditor was charged
with reviewing and critiquing the entire project (Creswell, 2003); the thorough
description and supporting documentation of the project served to increase the
probability of the study’s overall trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
A variety of data collection strategies were utilized throughout this research
project, resulting in the findings, discussion, and conclusions that follow later in the
report. Critical steps were taken throughout the process to assure that the study was
trustworthy, resulting in a study with significant application in understanding the impact
of technology on learner interactions in elementary school classrooms.
Delimitations and Limitations
Within the context of a research project, delimitations are used to “narrow the
scope of a study” (Creswell, 2003, p. 148), and limitations are used within the research
process to identify any possible or “potential limitations of the study” (p. 148).
Delimitations identified for this study included:
62
•
The study was delimited to the timeframe, scope, and design of the research
project.
•
The study was delimited to the specific research site of a single elementary
school and three specific classrooms within the site.
Additional factors were also identified as potential limitations to the study:
•
The nature and scope of the research design and time constraints of the
researcher did not allow a true and prolonged immersion in the classrooms
under study. Patton (2002) stated that limitations can occur “in the situations
(critical events or cases) that are sampled…from the time periods during
which observations took place…[or the] selectivity in the people who were
sampled either for observations or interviews” (p. 563).
•
The researcher was the immediate supervisor of the research subjects, and as
such the study may have been impacted by the subjects’ willingness to talk
openly and honestly as a result of the supervisory relationship. This particular
limitation is explored further in the following section.
Researcher vs. Supervisor Role Confict
The qualitative research process often includes researcher immersion and
involvement in the culture under study. As such participation has the potential for altering
the culture at the same time the study is being conducted, researchers must be cognizant
of this observer (or Hawthorne) effect. Bogdan and Biklen (2003) noted that qualitative
researchers often try to “blend into the woodwork” (p. 35) and use such techniques as
“modeling interviews after a conversation between two trusting parties rather than on a
formal question-and-answer session between a researcher and a respondent” (p. 35).
63
Awareness of the observer effect, which can never be totally eliminated, can be used by
the researcher to understand how their presence and participation impacts the setting and
can also assist in the development of additional insights into the nature of the culture.
In that the principal researcher of this project was simultaneously the principal
and thus supervisor of the research site, precautions and careful deliberation were
demanded to offset potential conflicts that might result from this dual role. Anderson,
Herr, and Nihlen (1994) noted that teachers often feel as if they are living in a fishbowl,
where “their professional competence is constantly vulnerable to question from parents,
students, principals, and fellow teachers…they are understandably defensive about what
they may perceive as attacks on their professional competence” (p. 40). Additionally, a
supervisor by nature is one who yields some authority or power, thus setting up a
potential conflict that results from the perceptions or realities of power wielders who “are
often causing and sustaining injustice and inequality” (Møller, 1998, p. 72). The
researcher-supervisor, a male in a predominantly female setting, also had to be sensitive
to gender and role relationships and the societal framework that “indicates the existence
of a power differential and suggests the potential for bias in expectations and/or actions”
(Paisley, 1994, p. 2).
As an insider who would continue to serve as a member of the culture under study
long after the research was concluded, it was imperative that the researcher be aware of
the impact of the research on the lives of those who were being studied (Zeni, 1998). The
researcher was simultaneously supervising a school campus and conducting research on
its inhabitants, thus being an insider, while at the same time searching for the objectivity
of an outsider point of view. The line between these two roles, while clear to the
64
researcher, would often be blurred to the research participants. Thus, the researcher was
continually cognizant that his colleagues would react to the “researcher hat” in much the
same way as to the “supervisor hat” that they had become accustomed to in the
researcher’s role as school principal (Anderson et al., 1994).
To ensure that the effects of any researcher-supervisor role conflict were kept to a
minimum, a number of precautions were carefully established prior to the research
commencing:
•
Permission was obtained from the school district’s central administration to
conduct the research.
•
Approval was obtained from the researcher’s dissertation advisory committee
and the University’s Institutional Review Board.
•
An initial meeting with the teacher participants detailed the intent and purpose
of the study, the proposed methodology, and their proposed roles in the study.
•
Teacher participants were employees in good standing, licensed, and tenured.
•
As tenured teachers in the district, annual personnel reviews were structured
around personal and team goals tied to the school’s campus improvement
plan. No traditional evaluation was required.
•
Teacher participants were assured that, should any instance arise in their
classrooms that would precipitate administrative intervention, the research
would cease immediately and no research-based observations would be
utilized for the basis of further evaluation.
•
Conversations were held throughout the project to ensure that comfort with
the research process continued, and
65
•
Teacher participants signed informed consent forms prior to the researcher
beginning the project.
The research was conducted in a manner that many educators have embraced as
action research, often carried out by teachers within their own classrooms. The
supervisory role of the researcher in this context, however, was openly acknowledged and
confronted from the outset of the research design and implementation. Carpenter (1999)
faced a similar hurdle in her research in a New Zealand school, and noted that her
research was “neither fully objective nor fully neutral” (p. 9) while acknowledging that
her biases, experience, friendships, and social construction would call her neutrality as a
researcher into question. It is intended that the research being reported in this document,
while contributing to the knowledge base of the impact of educational technology on
learner interactions, will also serve to supplement the field of qualitative research and the
impact of multiple roles of the researcher on the research context and findings.
The specific methods employed to design and conduct the research have been
presented to allow the reader a thorough understanding of the study. Specific findings
related to the data analysis of this qualitative study will be presented in the following
chapter.
66
CHAPTER FOUR
Findings
As a research project grounded in the traditions of qualitative inquiry, this study
was conducted following the methods described in the previous chapter. The primary
methods of data collection included informal and formal observations in the classrooms,
a personal interview with each teacher, and a focus group interview with selected
students from each classroom. Data collected from these methods, in addition to pertinent
documents gathered during the project, were analyzed by categorizing each unit of data
that emerged during the analysis. The categories for analysis included Collaboration,
Student to Teacher Interaction, Teacher to Student Interaction, Student to Student
Interaction, Interaction with Technology, Interaction with Content, Interaction with
People, Engagement/Motivation, Students as Teachers, Professional Development,
Background, Philosophy, Pedagogy, Comfort with Technology, Researcher/Supervisor
Conflict, Trust/Comfort, Students Changed during Observation, and Teacher Changed
during Observation.
Following this categorization, the constant comparative method of data analysis
was further utilized to identify any patterns in the data related to the interactions of
learners within the classrooms and any impact the use of educational technology had on
those interactions. Some categories resulted in few entries while others yielded
significant amounts of data. Several themes emerged as the analysis continued, into
which the categories naturally fell, assisting in the task of “sense making” and providing
a basis upon which to thoroughly tell the research story. The themes that were developed
and utilized as an outline for each case study included: Background, Philosophy and
67
Pedagogy (presented in the introductory paragraphs of each case study), Teacher Comfort
with Educational Technology, Interactions in the Absence of Educational Technology,
Interactions in the Presence of Educational Technology, Learner Perceptions of
Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning, and Exploring the Researcher-Supervisor
Conflict.
The results of the analysis are presented in this chapter as individual descriptive
case studies following the outline described above, and are presented in order of lowest to
highest levels of technology adoption. Each case study begins with a thorough
description of the classroom and background information on the teacher to assist the
reader in understanding the research context. After presenting the findings related to
technology and its impact on the interactions in the classroom, a description is provided
regarding the researcher-supervisor role and any impact the dual role had on the
inhabitants of the classrooms under study. While the comments of individual participants
and researcher observations of participants are presented with names attached,
pseudonyms were utilized throughout this report to protect participant confidentiality.
Quotes followed by “O.C. MM/DD/YYYY” reflect an excerpt from the observation notes
– an Observer’s Comment – and are reflective commentary on a particular moment or
event.
The research site was an elementary school that opened in 1930. The two-story
structure features common elements of the era, including a red brick and limestone facade
with intricate stonework flanking the large main entrances of the building. Sizeable
expanses of windows span the exterior of the building, reaching nearly to the top of the
14-foot ceilings in each classroom. Several additions to the school over a period of
68
decades carefully mirrored the original structure in cosmetic appearance, resulting in a
school that has grown from its original nine classrooms to seventeen classrooms, library,
and multipurpose room.
The research described herein was conducted in three separate classrooms over
the span of several months. Salient findings from each case study will be presented
individually in a descriptive format, beginning with Anna’s fourth grade classroom.
Case Study #1 – Anna’s Classroom
Anna’s classroom is found on the second floor of the structure, adjacent to the
southern stair access to the second floor. The classroom is approximately 23 x 30 feet in
dimension, with windows on the eastern wall that span the length of the room and begin
from about four feet above the floor and reach nearly to the top of the high ceiling of the
room. Two rows of fluorescent lighting fixtures are suspended from the ceiling to provide
adequate light for the room. The classroom, as with the rest of the building, features an
oversized oak door with intricate oak trim around the door, windows, closets, and
whiteboards.
Whiteboards and bulletin boards cover the south and west walls of the classroom,
while windows are on the east wall, and closet and storage areas are on the north end of
the room. The plaster walls are painted the color of cream, while the ceiling is covered
with white acoustical tiles. The original hardwood floor adds to the character of the 76year-old classroom, with expected squeaks and creaks as the inhabitants move about the
room.
Anna arranges her classroom with student desks in rows facing the northern end
of the room. Five rows of desks span the room, with the middle row standing alone while
69
the outer two rows on each side are paired together. Behind the students is the entrance to
the classroom as well as Anna’s desk and a row of four multimedia Windows computer
stations. At the front of the room is an overhead projector and screen, while a whiteboard
spans the wall on the students’ left and also houses maps appropriate for the curriculum
covered in this grade level. The walls above the whiteboards and the bulletin boards are
used to display curriculum-oriented posters, e.g. number lines, six-trait writing
guidelines, problem solving strategies, and a vocabulary “word wall.” The arrangement
of furniture and students within the classroom remained constant throughout the research
project. Anna’s 23 fourth grade students (nine to ten years old) consisted of 11 males and
12 females; 18 students were of Caucasian descent, while three were African American,
one was Hispanic, and one was multi-racial according to school enrollment records.
Seven short-term, drop-in observations were conducted during the research
project, typically 15 to 20 minutes in length. Three extended observations were also
employed as a part of the research, but were scheduled at Anna’s convenience and lasted
45 to 60 minutes each. Observations were primarily conducted during the morning hours
and most were during language arts related lessons, as this offered a large block of
instructional time uninterrupted by special classes; the scheduled observations were also
impacted by Anna working in a half-time position, sharing instructional duties of the
classroom with her “job share” partner. Science and social studies lessons were observed
as well.
Anna, a Caucasian female with twenty years of teaching experience, has been at
the school for seven years following the previous thirteen in a diocesan Catholic school in
the same city. She began her career later than many teachers, completing her bachelor’s
70
degree in elementary education in her mid-thirties following several years of working in
retail sales while raising young children. Although Anna has taken some graduate level
coursework over the years, she has not pursued a graduate degree because “I didn’t feel it
would help me that much.”
In order to better understand the classroom dynamics being observed, Anna’s
teaching philosophy and beliefs that supported her pedagogical choices in the classroom
were explored during the personal interview. She was quick to respond to this line of
inquiry, stating that her goal in teaching was to help her students “become successful and
productive and…able to function without the aid or assistance from the government.”
Further prompting led Anna to expand her thoughts to include that this particular
philosophy or desire did not fully develop until she began teaching in the public schools,
where she encountered many children from impoverished homes. While her original
desire to “help children” in her role as educator had not changed, her philosophy had
altered over the years to include the concept that as educators “we give our students
freedom – freedom from poverty, freedom from a lot of things.”
Observations began approximately one month into the school year to allow
regular classroom routines and relationships to develop prior to the research beginning. In
a format which soon appeared to be fairly routine, students had their books and materials
on their desks while Anna worked from the front of the room, often utilizing the overhead
projector to assist students in understanding concepts, demonstrating expected outcomes,
and providing visual feedback on assignments the students were working through. The
mode of instruction most typically observed in the classroom was one that Anna
described as “direct instruction.”
71
The pedagogical choices made in supporting this teaching style were further
defined by Anna during the personal interview, where she explained that she preferred “a
quiet classroom, where the teacher gives instruction, gives the lesson, and then the
students are able to practice a little of it while the teacher monitors.” She expressed
concern that if students are “kind of doing their own learning, I’m not sure whether any
of them are,” and that they don’t “really stay on task unless there is somebody guiding
them or watching them.” Students commented during the focus group interview about
Anna’s preferred mode of teaching, noting that “she’ll go up on the overhead and show
us what we’re supposed to do and then give us a worksheet to do on it as homework,”
and “she’s strict and she makes you pay attention and learn, and she’s really good at it,
too.”
Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology
Whereas this project was fundamentally focused on how technology impacts
learner interactions in the classroom environment, teachers were purposefully selected
who were perceived to have different attitudes, perceptions, and skill sets in the use of
educational technology in their classrooms. Anna, a veteran teacher, had been observed
to use technology in her classroom at a minimal level, although she appeared open to
learning how to use new tools in her teaching. In seeking to better understand Anna’s
technology comfort level, permission was received to review a technology profile
(http://profilerpro.com/) completed at the beginning of the school year for the school’s
professional development program. The assessment provided a series of statements about
the participant’s knowledge in the areas of operating systems, troubleshooting and
maintenance, tool applications, internet and telecommunications, and multimedia
72
functions, with each item being rated as unable, adequate, familiar, or fluent. Anna
consistently rated herself at the unable or adequate levels in all five areas. Permission was
also obtained to review Anna’s electronic professional development portfolio (the district
contracts to utilize mylearningplan.com) which found only three events related to
technology use or integration over the course of five years.
During the personal interview, Anna was asked to place herself on the Levels of
Adoption continuum developed through the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow research,
which included the levels of Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, and Invention.
Anna placed herself between the Adoption (using technology to support traditional
instruction), and Adaptation (integrating technology into traditional practice) levels,
stating “I’m using the computer basically as a word processor or as a typewriter to do the
writing process,” while “I’m starting to bring the computer in to do some extra
research…I am trying to do a little more of the research and go a little bit beyond just the
lesson.”
Anna had continued to push herself professionally in learning how to utilize
educational technology effectively, while admitting being frustrated at times due to the
time spent troubleshooting technology problems, student errors in finding websites, etc.,
and feeling like “there’s a lot of time wasted.” She stated that she was “trying to use the
computers more…to think of different ways to use them,” and was currently working on
the areas of word processing and research. An interesting caveat to Anna’s discussion of
the use of technology was the impact she has observed in her own planning:
I really think that there has been better planning for the lessons. I think before you
would look at standards and say, OK, does this material cover the standards, and
73
if it covered the standards that is what I’d teach. But with using the computers you
have to go a little bit further in your planning, and I think you think a little bit
more about what you are doing and how you’re going to do it because it’s a
management deal.
Anna’s students also reported noticing her attempts to incorporate technology into
her classroom, as Grace noted that they were beginning to use the computers more
because Anna “wanted to learn more about technology…she’s letting us do think.com [a
secure, student-generated global online community] a lot because she wants to know how
we use it, and lets us type stories.” Tina noted that Anna “is really off and on with the
technology thing...I think she is getting more into it because we are typing stories on the
laptops,” and Letitia added “when we work on technology she is real happy, and is like,
ok, let’s go...she likes the computer and the laptop and she says she wants to know how
to go to sites and things like that.”
Anna’s comfort with and confidence in the use of educational technology were
often confirmed in the pedagogical choices observed in her classroom throughout the
research process. The majority of classroom visits did not involve any educational
technology at all, which provided significant opportunities to view interactions in a
relatively pure form and not influenced by technological devices.
Interactions in the Absence of Educational Technology
Although primarily teacher-directed on most occasions, students regularly
interacted with Anna during the lessons. They would often raise their hands as she asked
questions about the textbook, subject, or workbook they were studying, responding as
Anna called on them individually. The classroom was normally tightly structured in
74
terms of how students behaved and responded to the teacher, but the tone of the
classroom was generally positive as students and teacher interacted during the learning
process, often with the teacher interjecting lighthearted comments and teasing with the
students. At times students were noted to work independently at their desks with a
textbook or worksheet, followed by a period of Anna questioning students about the
content they were covering, e.g. “who is the main character?” or “what do you think they
are going to do?” A number of observations found the students grouped in diads and
triads as they alternated reading out of a selected text, again followed by a line of
questioning from the teacher and an assignment for students to complete independently or
at times in pairs or small groups. Anna described this technique as “we’ll do a reading
together...then they each will work independently and then get with a partner and share
their answers. If one of them has a different answer they have to go back to the book and
prove...one of them has to prove which one’s correct.” Students echoed the finding by
explaining that Anna often lets them “be with a group so you can figure it out together
and know how to do it better,” and “we’ll get together with somebody and check our
answers.”
During the process of observing the classroom over a period of time, it was found
that observing personal interactions was difficult to separate from interactions with the
content involved in the lessons. Interactions between learners were most often focused
around content as the learners in the room responded to one another and the material they
were covering. Anna stated that when instruction is primarily teacher-directed, “there is a
lot of discussion going on, and if they don’t know the definition of a word they are real
good about asking what that word means…students are not afraid to answer any
75
questions or ask any questions.” Students also noted that if they don’t understand a word
or concept, they are able go up to the teacher for clarification, or at times can even “clap”
(during choral reading) to signal that they need assistance. Julie claimed that “if we are
having a problem with something we can go up to her and she will explain it...she’ll
really help us with it.” Times did occur when interaction with others was minimal, e.g.
when students were performing an independent task such as reading or completing a
written assignment, although students were observed to ask questions of one another on
occasion even while engaged in independent work.
One major exception to the direct instruction modality of the described nontechnology lessons occurred during a science lesson that involved a number of “hands
on” items, a group work product, and a significant change from the typical level of
interaction and activity in the room. Anna had been presenting students with information
about the process of classification, beginning the lesson with information, discussion, and
questioning of students about their understanding of the content and process of scientific
classification. Following the presentation, the students moved into groups of two to three
to work collaboratively on an activity that entailed taking a random selection of buttons
and classifying them by some distinguishing characteristic. Once the task was completed,
groups worked together and attempted to discover how their peers had completed the task
and what identifying characteristics had been used to classify the buttons.
Observational fieldnotes indicated that the noise level rose markedly in the room
during this particular lesson as students interacted with one another to complete the task
and to convince their peers of their reasoning and classification skills. Students were
observed to excitedly collaborate on the task as they solved the problem at hand and
76
questioned one another in a manner that evoked higher levels of analysis than usually
observed. Letitia described this learning experience during the focus group interview as
she stated, “we learn best when we learn something and then we kind of act it out so that
we’ll really get to know it,” while Thomas added, “if you do something that’s fun you
remember it more than if you just read it out of a book.” This particular observation also
led to a cathartic moment for the researcher as his general assumptions about the impact
of technology on interactions in the learning environment were challenged by the
fundamental lack of technology in this lesson, accompanied by particularly high levels of
student engagement and interaction:
As I am sitting here and watching all of this, I am thinking that maybe the impact
on interactions by technology is not as strong as I thought. Perhaps the impact of
“teaching style” has more to do with it, and the utilization of technology fits better
into some teaching styles than others. Anna is typically pretty structured and
traditional, and I see a lot of knowledge and comprehension level questioning
going on. Today as the kids are working on this science activity in groups with a
task to complete, I am seeing higher levels of thinking...definitely application
level if not even a bit higher! (O.C. 10/12/2005)
The vast majority of lessons observed in this classroom did not utilize any
technology to speak of, and primarily relied upon an overhead projector and screen at the
front of the room for display of teacher or student work. Two other lessons, however,
incorporated the school’s wireless laptop computers, serving to provide a significant
contrast to the non-technology lessons.
77
Interactions in the Presence of Educational Technology
All of the shorter, drop-in observations as well as one of the extended
observations were devoid of any educational technology. The remaining extended
observations, however, incorporated the school’s wireless laptop cart and provided a
Macintosh iBook for each student. In both of these lessons, students remained at their
desk and worked at their own desks on a specified task. The first was a social studies
assignment requiring students to do independent research on Argentina, a country the
class was studying for a special presentation. After receiving directions from the teacher
on what website to go to, students began working to find facts about the country as they
filled out a KWL graphic organizer (what I Know, what I Want to know, what I
Learned). As the students began working, Anna proceeded to play a music CD featuring
instrumental selections from the region.
Although students were completing an independent task, they visited openly
during the activity, and observation notes included a description of “a buzz of noise in the
room” as compared to other lessons. Three students (members of the school’s technology
team) were observed to immediately begin circulating around the room as the activity
began, and assisting students who were having technical difficulties. After helping
several students with similar issues, Grace loudly announced to the class, “When you go
to countryreports.org, if it says it can’t find the server you have to put in www.”
Throughout the lesson, students would raise their hand if they were having
problems and technology team members would leave their desks to assist their peers.
Students often compared notes with one another and comments were shared at times to
no one in particular, e.g. “Ooo, here’s their flag” and “I can pronounce most of it” (in
78
reference to the Argentinean national anthem). Other students were observed to help one
another during the task, most often in sharing information they had garnered during their
research. Elizabeth in particular became a point of interest during the observation, as she
often had behavior difficulties in and out of the classroom, displayed a significant deficit
of social skills in working with her peers on a regular basis, and required a good deal of
personal attention by her teacher. During this lesson, however, she participated at a level
commensurate to her peers, and at one point went to another student’s desk and “took
over” her computer. Her classmate inquired, “What are you doing?” to which Elizabeth
responded, “I am trying to show you something.” Although her assistance was not
entirely welcomed by her classmate, Elizabeth displayed a level of initiative and interest
in this lesson not typically observed.
As the time for the lesson concluded, Anna then called attention back to her as
students volunteered information to post on a group KWL chart. After a few minutes
Anna transitioned into the school-wide reading block, but students retained their laptops
on their desks. They were instructed to go to a new website hosted by the publisher of the
school’s reading adoption, and were guided to a pair of stories that they would read prior
to completing a “compare and contrast” activity. After giving further instructions,
students began to take turns reading aloud from the computer stories with Anna
interjecting questions with class discussion following each paragraph. Observational
fieldnotes referenced this variation to an often-utilized teaching strategy, as the computer
text had replaced the regular basal reader:
It is interesting that we have gone from a research and discovery tool to an e-book
being read aloud just as if they had their reading textbook in front of them. I am
79
wondering if the students are more engaged with the reading since it is on the
computer than if they were reading out of the book. (O.C. 11/3/2006)
Students were asked about this observation and how they perceived the difference
in pedagogical tools during the focus group interview. Thomas was quick to respond,
“it’s more fun because you scroll down instead of turn the page...it’s more fun if you’re
doing something different,” while Letitia described, “it’s hands on...more fun when you
do something differently.” Stephen added that the reading task on the computers was
“more interesting because you have better graphics...it will pop out better and be more
interesting on computers.”
Of particular interest was the unusual role taken by students during the technology
lessons. In non-technology lessons, students predominantly stayed at their desks,
participated in the lesson as directed by the teacher, and responded to the teacher by
raising their hand and waiting to be called upon. During the technology lessons, however,
students regularly interacted with one another while working, and students with
particularly good technology skills were called upon by their peers for assistance and
freely moved about the room to assist where needed.
Anna referenced this phenomenon during the personal interview, in that students
“learn to respect one another on a different level,” and that students “see that they
[technology team members] are gifted, more or less, in the area of technology...I think
they have a better respect for them.” She added, “They are really, really willing to help.
They want to help the other students. And I just think it’s nice that the other
students…they’ll let those kids help them, they’ll take direction.”
80
Students noted the difference as well, stating “if you sit by a tech team member
they will really help you if you don’t know how to do something.” They also referenced
that when they use technology in their classroom, the technology team “kind of takes
over” in terms of leading the activity. Thomas described what happened to the teaching
role during these lessons in student terms:
Instead of being the person that’s kind of ruling the classroom and telling
everybody what to do, she [the teacher] kind of gets kicked off, and more people
come up there that know what you’re doing. But she’s normally there for a little
bit to tell you what you need to do, and then she kind of gets kicked off and then
other people come up, and tell you where to go and what to do.
The second lesson that employed the wireless laptops was focused on a short
writing project. Anna began by asking Tina how to log on to the school server, although
not entirely sure that it was necessary for the lesson. While the technology team members
began to circulate about the room assisting students with the log-on process, Anna
explained to the researcher that she was just going to have them print off the documents
at the end of the lesson and turn them in. The researcher demonstrated how students
could log on to the server to save their work, as well as how individual student folders
could be set up for the classroom. After one or two examples, Anna then proceeded to set
up the remainder of the student folders on the server.
Students worked independently for the bulk of the hour-long observation, with
technology team members called on occasionally for assistance. Students were also
observed helping their neighbors from time to time with formatting and saving their
documents. While originally intending to take a passive role in the extended observation,
81
the researcher was drawn into a more active role as a school “technology expert.” At
times sharing a teachable moment with the technology team members in order for them to
help their peers, the researcher also circulated to assist students with a variety of technical
issues or helped the entire class with a problem they were all experiencing. An interesting
phenomena occurred, although not fully realized until the researcher retreated to the back
of the room to observe the last few minutes of the lesson: “As I ‘took over’ helping
students troubleshoot, the tech kids went back to their seats and worked on their own
projects and didn’t get up to help their neighbors anymore…I think I just took away their
job!” (O.C. 12/14/2006).
Anna discussed the students’ teaching role after having an opportunity to review
the draft report. She noted that, since a few students had taken the lead in helping with
technology applications, choosing to use PowerPoint for special projects, etc., that
additional students were “stepping up.” Anna added this perception as well:
I don’t think the kids would have been quite as anxious to do a PowerPoint if I
hadn’t learned a little bit myself through this whole process; I think they probably
would have been a little bit apprehensive. They know now that I’m ok with it so
they’re ok with it; if they make a mistake...it’s ok.
Learner Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning
During the two lessons involving technology, higher levels of interest in lesson
content and student engagement were consistently observed, in addition to students
taking on a teaching role on a number of occasions. These perceptions led to further
investigation through the personal and focus group interviews into how the classroom
occupants perceived technology’s impact or potential impact on learning.
82
Anna noted that although she was not completely comfortable with the use of
technology in her classroom, she saw a need to incorporate more technology into her
teaching. She stated that it should be used “to supplement what the teacher does, and
enhance some areas…some students are very good students and they like the enrichment
from it.” She also proposed that academically challenged students could learn from
technology as well, particularly in the area of writing, and that her goal was to expand her
use of technology through research projects in science, health, and social studies. A
concern noted earlier surfaced again as she said, “I just don’t want them to use their time
goofing around on games or doing something that I can’t watch what they’re doing or
they’re not on task.”
Acknowledging that technology can be of interest and a motivation to students,
Anna described herself as “striving to bring computers into the classroom more.” The
student engagement factor emerged as she reflected on the lesson involving the writing
assignment: “When they were typing the other day you could have heard a pin drop. I
think it was the second time we had had the computers…they were all just working
away.” In describing her need to incorporate more technology, she proposed that
technology’s impact on the outcomes of teaching and learning would not be significant to
her, but it “would be significant to the kids.” She summarized her perception of this line
of questioning by stating:
Students today are so smart about computers. Teachers are going to have to get on
the same level – or at least try to get with students – or the students are going to
think they’ve got a bunch of old fogies teaching…I don’t think they’re going to
enjoy a classroom where there are no computers ever.
83
As the research inquired as to how technology impacted Anna’s teaching, students
also discussed how the use of technology impacted their learning. A common response to
these questions was a simple “It’s more fun,” which required further probing to elicit a
deeper level of response. A difference noted by Letitia was a more thorough level of
understanding of content that inspired further discussion outside the classroom:
We learn more after we use the laptops because…we’ll keep reminding them
about it [the lesson material]. We talk to our friends more. Not while we’re doing
it, but we’ll go to the library and stuff and we’ll talk about the activities that we
had [with the technology] and what it was about.
Julie also noted a deeper level of understanding in that “when we use technology
we get to go a level up and learn more,” while Grace echoed that when using the laptops
the students have more fun, “but we’re still learning at the same time. I think that my
learning has changed a lot because sometimes when you use the textbooks you don’t
learn as much…when you use technology you learn a lot more.” A number of students
also mentioned that using the internet and e-mail applications were enjoyable, and Tina
noted that technology is also serving to “bring people together” in terms of on-line
activities and communication technologies. In answer to a follow-up question as to
whether the class needed to use technology more in their classroom, the entire group
replied with an emphatic “Yes!”
During an additional interview conducted with Anna after she had read the draft
copy of the case study, she added a reflection in connection to the use of technology in
her classroom. She stated, “I thought it was kind of interesting to hear the kids tell about
me and how they thought I taught…that made me feel good…at the same time I don’t
84
think that I’m hitting their interests all the time, because they do like the technology,” and
then added “I need to bring more technology in to keep their interest.”
Anna indicated during this subsequent discussion that there was one particular
thought brought out through the case study that made a big impact on her personally:
They want more technology, more interaction, and I really think they would
prefer to manage more of their own learning, which is the one thing that scared
me because I’m scared to death they are going to miss something along the way.
But at the same time they may pick up something else that I hadn’t expected for
them to pick up, so it could be good if they start monitoring their own learning.
The previous sections have described findings related to learner interactions in
Anna’s classroom both in the presence and absence of technology as well as how learners
perceived technology’s current and potential impact of technology on learning. Finally, a
discussion will be presented to consider the impact of the researcher’s dual role on the
research project.
Exploring the Researcher-Supervisor Role Conflict
The researcher, when proposing this research, knowingly undertook the project in
a school in which he served as principal. The potential conflict between the researcher’s
dual roles was seriously considered and monitored throughout the project. Efforts were
made to identify the researcher as such during the data gathering process – a large
nametag worn on a lanyard identified the researcher as a university doctoral student and
researcher. Still, it would not be surprising if the research subjects considered the
researcher in his primary role of supervisor during the classroom observations, as he was
in and out of classrooms on a regular basis prior to the research commencing. While the
85
researcher was unaware of any differences in the classroom due to the observer effect, the
potential of such an effect was explored during the interview process with teacher and
students alike.
A significant finding from Anna’s perspective was an unexpected motivation to
incorporate technology into her teaching. The invitation to participate in the study caused
her to reflect on her teaching practice and a desire to expand her use of technology:
“That’s one of the reasons that I said I’d do it...because I felt like if I was being forced to
do it – not that you were forcing me – but that if I was forcing myself I would do it.
Otherwise I’m sure that I would not have used the computers.” In response to the pursuit
of further information about the impact of the research project on her teaching, Anna
continued:
It’s not because you’re my principal and I was afraid to say no. I wanted to do it
for me. I wanted to force myself to do it, but I knew it probably wouldn’t be done
if someone didn’t nudge me a little bit and get me started.
Anna also expressed a level of trust with the researcher being in her classroom
and acting in the participant observer role:
I respect you as a principal. There have been principals that I have not respected,
and I feel like you’ve come into the room and you’ve helped. You’ve been an aide
not only to the students but also to me…and you’ve taught me.
She continued her explanation of how the research had impacted her performance and
instructional choices by stating:
I don’t see you as a supervisor or as a principal…I see you as a person wanting to
help make things better. And did it change anything that I did? No, not really…I
86
just never would have brought computers in and done research or any of the
extras.
After a final inquiry of what role the supervisory function of the researcher played
in her perception of the research process, Anna responded:
When you asked me to do it I thought I could say no and you weren’t going to fire
me or get rid of me, it was just a choice I had to make on my own. It was my
choice; it was not your choice. It was something personally I wanted to do. I felt
like if somebody is going to be watching me or working with me, then I know that
I’m going to have to do it and it will force me to do it. It will put me on a
timeframe or schedule…it’s one of those things where I’ve wanted to do it, the
opportunity came, and I just wanted to do it for me.
A similar line of questioning was pursued with students to gauge their reactions to
the researcher/supervisor being in their classroom on a regular basis. While Letitia noted
that she was “a little suspicious at first…but I got over it,” Thomas observed that it “was
kind of fun that you were in there,” and Julie responded that she “felt comfortable
because you would see what we were doing and maybe understand more what we do in
our classroom.”
While students confirmed a level of comfort with the researcher being in their
classroom, they also indicated that the supervisory role did have an impact on some
students. Julie offered that “some of the girls in our classroom like to talk and pass notes,
but they don’t pass notes anymore,” and Thomas felt that “we were a bit quieter, because
when you came in we either had the laptops or were doing something fun.” Daniel, while
at first stating that there was “no difference,” later observed, “When you were in our
87
room she wasn’t bad” in reference to a student who often had difficulties with behavior
issues. Tina added to the conversation by reflecting that students were “better when you
are in there because they thought you were writing things down about them.” When
asked whether they perceived these differences as due to the researcher doing research or
to his role as principal, multiple students responded, “Because you’re the principal.”
Anna reflected on these comments after reading the draft case study and made this
observation in regard to students perceiving their peers acting differently during the
research: “I think if anything it would have been because they had to attend to a task –
physically involved in doing something – they were actively engaged so they couldn’t be
fooling around.” She added that, in regard to how students acted with the researcher
present, “I didn’t think the kids acted any differently.”
The initial personal interview included exploration into what impact the
researcher’s presence had on her teaching, to which Anna confidently replied, “I
continued doing what I was doing.” A similar question was asked of students, who had a
difficult time divorcing what Anna did in her teaching from how students acted in the
classroom. Grace, however, seemed to have a better understanding of the question, and
offered:
I don’t think there is a difference [with the researcher present], because she
doesn’t try to act all good or like she’s the best teacher and all. She just kind of
goes with the flow and does what she’s doing, and she keeps doing what she’s
doing and doesn’t mind that you’re in there. Well, she does mind, but not in a bad
way...she doesn’t try to act all good because she wants you to think she’s the best
teacher.
88
An additional observation regarding the impact of the researcher’s dual role had
nothing to do with how the teacher and students responded to the researcher’s presence.
Separating the roles was more difficult than imagined for the researcher himself. After
years of observing classrooms from the role of instructional leader, the researcher would
occasionally reflect on occurrences in the classroom that had little to do with the research
context. One such entry in the observation log included the following excerpt:
I went into principal mode for a moment and had to forcibly return to observing
interactions. I am so used to observing teachers and commenting on what they are
doing that it is difficult to look just at the interactions occurring in the classroom.
Hopefully this will get easier. (O.C. 9/26/2005)
The process of observing as researcher became easier as the task continued, but
even two months later the “principal hat” would briefly surface once again during a
lesson in which students were searching for information from a reading passage: “Should
she have talked about the strategies at this point? Are there any questions that would be
easily found? Which ones? Could they process the information as a group? Here go the
principal questions again” (O.C. 11/28/2005). These events occurred less frequently as
the study continued and the researcher gained experience in the participant observer role.
Finally, reflections during the months of data collection and analysis indicated
that a pleasant and unexpected result came as the researcher and participants “have
become closer having gone through the process,” and another entry from the reflection
log indicated that “I know without a doubt that there is a great deal of wonderful teaching
going on in their classrooms, and now I have a much stronger appreciation for what it is
they do every day.” To gauge whether this observation had anything but personal merit, a
89
follow up question was asked after Anna had an opportunity to reflect on the draft case
study:
I am a lot more honest and I am a lot more...anymore I feel like I can trust you
and I can tell you about stuff, and you’re going to be fair about it and give good
direction. It doesn’t bother me anymore to come and talk to you...so I think you
being in the classroom more has helped our relationship in being more honest and
open and trusting each other.
Anna further discussed her perception of the trust issue as she reflected on
allowing her students to participate in the focus group interview process.
I’ve got to trust you that even if the kids came in and said [Anna] is an absolutely
horrible teacher...we hate her guts...that you would tell me that and you would
work with me to become a better teacher. For those kids, I had to trust you in
order to talk to my kids about me, and if I didn’t trust you I wouldn’t want my
kids talking to you. I think it opened up a lot of dialogue between you and I.
This discussion continued by extending how the lessons learned from the
observations and relationships might hold valuable implications for practicing
administrators, particularly in encouraging them to get into classrooms more often. Anna
immediately added to this line of thought with “in a non-threatening way. They have to
be in there not with their notepads taking notes and watching this, but working with the
students, working with you on some things.” Her final thought on the research process
simply stated, “it’s brought dialogue between you and I that we probably would have
never had.”
90
The case study discussed in the previous pages described salient findings from the
research in Anna’s classroom. A second case study is presented in the following section,
standing separately from the previous discussion in analysis and presentation of findings.
Case Study #2 – Barbara’s Classroom
Barbara’s classroom is found in the center of the second floor of the school, just
across from the school’s main staircase. The room is approximately 23 x 30 feet in
dimension, and with a full wall of windows on the western exposure of the building it is
not uncommon for the room to be a bit warm in the afternoon. Barbara’s desk can be
found in the southeast corner of the classroom surrounded by a desktop computer,
portable bookshelves, and built-in cabinetry full of a variety of teaching materials and
books; the work area is located to the far right side of the front of the classroom. The east
wall is covered with a large expanse of slate chalkboard in addition to maps, television
and VCR, and pull-down slide screen. A coat closet is located on the north end of the
room while the southern wall features a series of bulletin boards covered with curriculum
items, e.g. math ‘”problem of the day,” calendar activities, etc. As with the other
classrooms in the building, an oversized oak door and detailed dark oak trim highlight the
early 20th Century architecture of the school, including the original wooden floors in the
classroom. The walls are made of plaster and painted off-white, and acoustical tiles cover
the high ceiling.
Student desks are arranged in several small groups of four, with pairs of desks
facing one another, and the arrangement remained largely unchanged throughout the
research project. The number of students in this classroom was somewhat smaller than a
typical year due to an additional classroom being added at the grade level. Nineteen
91
students made up this third grade class of eight and nine year olds, of which 11 were male
and eight were female; 12 of the students were Caucasian, five were African American,
and two were multi-racial according to school enrollment records.
Two rows of fluorescent lights span the length of the room, and student artwork is
often displayed by hanging items with string from the lighting fixtures or craft wire
strung across the room. On the south end of the classroom, aligned with Barbara’s work
area, are four Windows computer stations that face the south wall. The computers are
spread out over several tables, making it possible for more than one student to be engaged
at a terminal simultaneously. A video projector and laptop computer, in addition to an
overhead projector, are located at the front of the room next to a portable podium.
Eight short-term, unscheduled observations were conducted during the research
project and were typically between 15 and 20 minutes long. In addition, three extended
observations were conducted and lasted between 45 and 60 minutes each; Barbara
provided scheduled lessons of her choice for the extended observations. Observations
were spread throughout the school day, with five short-term and one extended
observations occurring in the morning while the remaining three short-term and two
extended observations took place in the afternoon. Subject matter observed included
reading, math, social studies, and science.
Barbara is a Caucasian female in her mid-forties, who began teaching
immediately after graduating from a state university as a traditional “college to
classroom” teacher. She served as a reading teacher for four years in a small rural
community while pursuing her master’s degree in reading, wherein she gained an
additional endorsement as a reading specialist. Barbara moved to this urban school
92
district 19 years ago and has taught at two different elementary schools. Her last five
years have been spent in her current assignment.
In order to better understand the context of the classroom and the underpinnings
of Barbara’s teaching, the interview began with an inquiry regarding her philosophy of
teaching. Barbara struggled with this question initially, stating “I’ve always said the year
that I come to school in the fall and don’t fall in love is the year I need to find something
else to do…I just love the kids and try to help them.” After pausing for a moment, she
continued:
It has to do with being a family in your classroom, helping kids, helping each
other. I really feel in my heart that what I do is important. I think some people
have jobs that aren’t important, but I really feel in my heart that what I am doing
can make a difference.
Later in the interview Barbara was speaking about her preferred mode of
teaching, and after a potential connection between her statements and her teaching
philosophy was pointed out, she agreed and summarized:
I truly believe in the science model where you give kids stuff and then they come
up with their questions, and then that directs your instruction to a certain point.
They still – with reading and math – they still have to learn certain things. If you
can, give them the tools and let them see the direction that it goes and kind of go
from there.
Barbara also referenced how her experience had impacted her philosophy and
approach to teaching. After beginning her career in a small rural community with
“families of friends” where “everybody knew everything,” she moved to an urban district
93
and a school located in an impoverished neighborhood. She thus reported that this
experience resulted in a significant impact on her beliefs:
Those kids were so needy. I was there 15 years, and some days I felt like they
sucked the marrow out of my bones…they were so needy. I hope that I’m a better
teacher. I think having my own children has changed my expectations and my
philosophy on teaching…knowing what kids can do and kids have problems, and
trying to help kids that have problems.
Observations in Barbara’s classroom began approximately a month into the
school year, which allowed for classroom norms and routines to be fairly established
prior to the research commencing. A common element seen throughout the observations
included a laptop computer and projector at the front of the classroom. In years past,
Barbara utilized an overhead projector instead, but had been working on digitizing many
of her materials and adding to her arsenal of visual teaching tools. She explained this
instructional choice during the interview, stating, “I’m a visual learner, so I think at times
I am more of a visual teacher. But I try to say I’m a visual learner but you might not
be…this is how I might do this but not necessarily how you would do that.” Barbara
added that she also believes that “there’s not just one thing that’s going to get everybody.
You kind of have to be multi-pronged...you have to kind of try to see where people are
going and try to help them.”
Students also noted a variety of instructional activities in the room, with Craig
commenting that, “she tries to…help us learn by doing things that are fun and make it as
painless as it can be.” Others found that Barbara would often “give us the answers and
give us the last few by ourselves” with Sally adding, “she’ll come over and help us figure
94
out how to do it better” when students are struggling with concepts presented during
whole group instruction.
Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology
In seeking to understand how learner interactions were impacted by technology
use in elementary classrooms, teachers were purposefully selected for the research project
who were perceived to have different attitudes, perceptions, and skills sets in regard to
educational technology. Barbara, a veteran teacher, had been observed over the course of
the previous year to embrace a belief that technology had a place in her classroom, and
often sought assistance from her colleagues to more thoroughly integrate technology into
her teaching.
All staff members at the school completed a technology basic skills assessment at
the beginning of the school year to assist in directing the school’s professional
development program (http://profilerpro.com), and permission was received to review
Barbara’s technology profile in order to better understand her comfort with educational
technology. The self-assessment provided a series of statements about the participant’s
knowledge in the areas of operating systems, troubleshooting and maintenance, tool
applications, internet and telecommunications, and multimedia functions, with each item
being rated as unable, adequate, familiar, or fluent. Barbara predominantly rated herself
at the adequate and familiar levels in all five areas of the assessment. In reviewing her
mylearningplan.com professional development portfolio, eight instances of technologyrelated events were found over the past two years, several of which were in reference to
the writing of a technology grant.
95
At one point in the interview, Barbara was also asked to place herself on the
Levels of Adoption continuum developed through the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow
research, which included the levels of Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, and
Invention. Barbara first placed herself between the Adoption (using technology to support
traditional instruction) and Adaptation (integrating technology into traditional practice)
categories, but then reflected that she was “more at the Adaptation stage…I think I’m still
learning. We use it every day and I’m trying to get it into the kids’ heads that it can help
them and what they need to be able to do.” While pursuing this questioning further,
Barbara explained, “I’m on a learning curve…there’s a lot I need to learn yet, but I’m
trying. I kind of put myself out there...learning with the kids, I think. We’re both learning
together on some things…I’d say I’m a beginner.”
Barbara’s efforts to incorporate technology into her classroom while learning
along with her students were often visible during the classroom observations, while a
number of observations were absent any technology at all. An exploration into learner
interactions in the classroom environment, both with and without technology, was
necessary to further understand the research context.
Interactions in the Absence of Educational Technology
Early attempts to categorize interactions as involved with content, technology, or
people proved difficult at best, as interactions between the occupants of the classroom
were most often related to the content they were covering. In order to better understand
the interactions in the classroom, it became necessary to look at interactions in general,
yet separated by when technology was present and when it was not.
96
When the classroom was engaged in whole group instruction in the absence of
technology, Barbara would often cradle a textbook or other materials in her arm while
she maneuvered around the classroom, and at other times would station herself at the
overhead projector or laptop/projector system while she presented content to the class.
One such occasion found Barbara and her students with their reading basal, working on
whether items read were fact or opinion. She was leading the class to orally recite some
hints that they had apparently discussed previously, e.g. statements that begin with “I
think” or “I believe” are opinion. She then presented additional statements as the class
responded chorally with “fact” or “opinion,” and she would reinforce their response with
statements such as “that’s a fact.”
Following the review Barbara began to read aloud a story about sharks.
Periodically she would stop, asking the students whether the previous reading was fact or
opinion, to which the students would chorally respond. After the class responded as a
whole, Barbara would specifically ask individual students to explain their reasoning,
assisting them as needed or asking another student to help their peer with the answer.
Other observations would find students with a small whiteboard, dry erase
marker, and “sock eraser” at their desks while Barbara led them through a number of
instructional exercises. These occasions were often rapid fire in terms of the speed of the
lesson, with students listening, quickly writing answers on their whiteboards, and holding
them up for a moment for Barbara to check. She would typically move throughout the
room during these lessons, occasionally engaging personally with a student as she
acknowledged a correct answer with “I think it is, too!” or “We’re good!” Other times
found her assisting an individual student for a moment to explain a concept or what was
97
missing in their answer. Barbara’s explanation of her concept of her students as a family
was also observed in her interactions with her students, often laughing with them, calling
them “Babe,” and teasing them when their efforts needed further attention, e.g. “Show
me your work, Matthew…gonna get beaten with a wet noodle if you don’t!” Following
periods of whole group presentation and practice were typically moments of independent
work where students were observed to work quietly, often referenced in research
fieldnotes as “Students continue to work at their desks on their own throughout the
period” (O.C. 10/6/2005), and “All were working independently as the teacher walked
around the room” (O.C. 11/30/2005).
An additional strategy observed on a number of occasions was the use of
instructional centers. Students would work either independently at their desks or at
computer stations, while a small group worked with Barbara. The rotations were
observed across subject matter, and often included what Tommy referred to as “fun but
educational games” during the independent portions of the center activities. Barbara’s
instructional focus during these periods was found in the back corner of the room, which
featured an area rug, a small whiteboard on an easel, and a rocking chair. Barbara would
typically be seated in the rocking chair during this small group activity with the students
gathered on the floor at her feet.
During these small group lessons, Barbara would utilize the whiteboard along
with a variety of student materials, e.g. worksheets or “read along” books. In one such
lesson Barbara listed a number of consonant blends on the whiteboard, and as she sat
down in her chair she asked the students “What are we looking for?” Students proceeded
to work in pairs as they read through the reading selection and used a highlighter to mark
98
the blends found in the passage. Two students who struggled with the lesson were
directed to “come sit by me,” and Barbara assisted them with their task as they worked
through the lesson as a group. On this particular occasion, the researcher joined the group
on the rug in order to better hear and observe what was transpiring, and two students
responded by sitting on either side of the researcher and engaging him in the activity with
questions such as “will you help us?” and “what other blends do you see?”
Another small group lesson was focused on a vocabulary activity while the
teacher asked students about words related to the previous whole class reading lesson.
Interactions during these activities were observed to be primarily teacher initiated as she
asked questions, prompted, and waited for student responses. Students appeared to be
very comfortable in the centers activities as well as in helping their classmates during
instruction. Lisa, for example, stated “if someone is right next to me and they ask me
what we’re doing right now, I can finish hearing the directions and then I can tell them,”
and Matthew reported “people really help each other when they’re having a hard time.”
Jeremy also contributed “when some kids don’t know a word, they might ask you and
you can tell them what the word is.”
Most students appeared to engage in the small group lessons very intently,
participating with the teacher and performing the tasks required. The climate was always
positive and appeared to be one in which students were comfortable with asking
questions when they needed assistance or didn’t understand a concept. Lisa, for example,
noted “if you need help with something you can ask her, if you don’t know a word and
the people beside you aren’t there you can ask her,” while Danita added “I think she’s
friendly.”
99
Attention was drawn to David on one particular occasion – a student who had
been observed to often struggle with the grade level academic content being presented in
the class or in the small group. Reflections from the fieldnotes included the following:
I noticed one student, David, off to one side of the group, and he appeared to be
struggling with the lesson, at times waiting for other students to respond to
prompts and then parroting their response. A similar technique was being utilized
for writing the required answers...he would wait for another to respond and then
try to write down the word. (O.C. 10/19/2005)
This observation was discussed with the teacher following the lesson, as David’s
well-disguised discomfort with content had apparently resulted in his developing a
number of coping skills that masked his actual ability and achievement. Barbara
acknowledged this perception and noted that David was a concern and one who often
received additional attention and instruction.
While a number of lessons were devoid of educational technology as pictured
above, others were observed to utilize a significant amount of technology and focused
integration of technology tools. The contrast between these two lesson formats provided
additional information to consider during the search for meaning in this observational
research.
Interactions in the Presence of Educational Technology
In approximately two-thirds of the observations conducted in this classroom,
some form of educational technology was utilized. Within those technology lessons, two
basic applications were found. The first was predominantly seen on those occurrences
where instructional centers were employed. While Barbara worked with a small group on
100
particular skills at the rug, the remainder of the class engaged in other assigned activities.
One group was typically assigned to the desktop computers while the rest would work at
their desks on an independent activity with a handheld computer. The use of the
handhelds usually included students working on a math flash card application or a game
called “Blocks.” Barbara indicated during the interview that “we use the Palms all the
time,” while Sarah later explained during the focus group interview that “we use the
Palms everyday...it’s a privilege for when you get done.” Once at the desktop computers,
students were allowed to self-select from a number of activities supporting the current
subject content, e.g. math activities during the math block. Observational fieldnotes
reflected, “At times the students worked in pairs on the sites, collaborating…other
students worked alone, and I observed some students jumping from one site to the next
during their rotation” (O.C. 10/14/2005).
Activities observed during the rotation activities with the handheld and desktop
computers were typically very quiet with little interaction between learners, save an
occasional quiet conversation with a neighbor. A general perception arising from this
scenario was that students were expected to engage in fairly quiet activities while the
teacher was working with a small group on academic content – a perception confirmed by
Barbara in a subsequent conversation. Students were also at times noted to be less
engaged with the handhelds and desktops as they worked alone; Barbara considered this
during an additional interview following her reading of the draft report. “That could be...I
think that’s accurate. I had never thought about that…when we use the laptops we have a
particular task” as opposed to the self-selected activities on the handheld and desktop
computers.
101
In approximately one-third of the observations, the class was working with the
school’s Macintosh iBook wireless laptop cart, allowing for all students in the class to
have their own wireless computer and internet resources. It was during these lessons that
the researcher was occasionally pulled into the classroom activity by students as they
worked on a variety of activities. The first such occasion, early in the school year, came
during a drop-in observation. Students were observed to have their laptops at their desks
while Barbara was working with an individual student, and as the researcher entered the
classroom several hands shot in the air and one student silently mouthed, “Help us!” As
the school’s building-wide wireless network was not yet installed, connectivity involved
making sure the laptop cart was plugged into the wired network before the laptops were
turned on. After observing a look of frustration on Barbara’s face, the researcher
diagnosed the problem and instructed students to restart their computers and the problem
was solved. Barbara reported following the lesson that she had “just told them all to get
quiet and that they would work out the problems they were having connecting to the
network.”
Students proceeded to work on a variety of activities, including a science-oriented
web quest and their think.com (a secure, student-generated on-line community) web
pages, an observation that was made on a number of occasions. While students worked
independently on their laptops, there was more activity and conversation in the classroom
than during the non-technology observations. At times this was due to students visiting
with one another informally as they worked, and other times due to more active
questioning of the adults and other students in the classroom as troubleshooting or
content issues arose. David, for instance, asked for help as he was trying to type in a web
102
address for an internet site and was having problems, stating “I’m not very good at
typing.” Another student, Jeremy, also grabbed the researcher’s attention to tell him to
“go to my website and look at my pictures.” The classroom appeared very informal
during these lessons, and Barbara would walk around working with students individually,
laughing occasionally, and responding to students as they raised their hands; at other
times students also seemed comfortable just asking for assistance or conversing with the
teacher, particularly if she was within close vicinity.
Students, in addition to asking adults in the room for assistance, were regularly
observed helping one another during the laptop experiences. They would freely move
about the room while they were working, observing what their peers were doing or
asking for help. David and Joseph, for example, gathered around Jeremy while he was
inserting some clipart into a project he was working on for a Kazakhstan report, and
David stated, “Show me how to get that to that art stuff.” At another time, Ross was
having problems with a PowerPoint assignment, and his neighbor assisted him in
formatting his title. Another student, Sarah, often would come to the researcher for
assistance when he was present, which Barbara noted “doesn’t happen when you’re not
here,” and was likely due to a “fatherly” connection that had been developed with the
student previously while her father was out of the country for a significant time due to
military duty. The example of this students as teachers finding was perhaps most well
illustrated during one lesson when a student got Tommy’s attention and stated, “Dude, I
need you,” at which time Tommy went to his peer’s desk to assist him with his
technology question. Barbara had previously “crowned Tommy the think.com king,” and
he was regularly observed serving as a resource for his peers.
103
Two additional occurrences were noted that seemed of interest. David, previously
referred to as a student who struggles academically and asks for assistance from adults
and students on a regular basis, was observed on one occasion moving to Michael and
then to Chloe, helping them find some desired information on the internet. Another
occasion involved Jenny, a special education student who was often out of the classroom
as she received intensive academic support due to her disability. She was present,
however, for a number of activities each day, and methodically followed along when the
classroom worked on the laptops. Her seatmate, Jeremy, was periodically observed to
move to Jenny’s desk to assist her with the task at hand, and would help her if she got
behind the rest of the class.
In exploring the students as teachers concept during the interview, Barbara
reflected:
I think one of the most interesting things is that the kids can learn from each
other, and they realize that there are some things that I’m not good at. And its
good for me to step back and say I’m not sure how to do that, but so and so
does…go ask them.
When students were asked who their “go to” people were in their classroom in
regards to technology, they immediately identified Tommy and Sarah. Upon further
inquiry into how these students acted differently than others, the immediate response
from students included “they’re really careful with it...they don’t like, mess around with
the laptops like a lot of the kids do,” and “they don’t stand up and jump around with the
laptops.” After further prompting as to how these students contribute to the classroom,
104
Craig responded, “they help people on the laptops more often than other people do,” and
Jeremy added that they “helped people get pictures into their PowerPoint.”
After observing technology being utilized during a number of observations, an
inquiry was made as to how Barbara viewed the role of technology in her classroom.
Barbara reported:
We use the Palms all the time; we’re using the computers all the time. They’re
doing research…we’re studying about Kazakhstan. Well, who knows anything
about Kazakhstan? No one…so we’re able to access that information. We’re
actually able to talk to Michael [her nephew serving in the Peace Corps] in
Kazakhstan...that’s just amazing, it really is! The communication piece is just
pretty interesting.
Students concurred during the focus group, adding that they “use the computers for
research,” “doing projects,” or working on “blocks, rocks, or flash cards, or a puzzle, or a
math quiz.” They were also repeatedly concerned about how the technology tools should
be treated in their room, as Lisa noted they should “treat the laptops like they are yours”
and Tommy pointed out that the laptops are to be “used at your desk” while Sally stated
“almost all of us want to make sure the computers don’t get broken, or the laptops, or the
Palms don’t break.”
Learner Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning
While fieldnotes indicated that students were involved and typically engaged in
the non-technology lessons, a higher level of engagement was repeatedly observed during
the lessons involving technology hardware and applications. When asking Barbara to
reflect on how her teaching varied with the use and integration of educational technology,
105
she replied, “Hopefully its more interesting. Sometimes you can take some of those
concepts that we do have to teach and make them more attractive to the kids.” Students
spoke about this finding in terms of their excitement toward technology use in their
learning, with Jeremy commenting, “When we can play on the Palms when we’re
finished with our paper, a lot of people just slop through the paper and don’t even read
the questions” in order to get to the technology faster. Craig also observed that,
“Sometimes certain people run up the stairs to get on the computers or get the Palms, and
I think if we didn’t have them the people won’t be running up the stairs because they
won’t be that excited.” To further explore this topic, a line of inquiry was followed in the
personal and focus group interviews to gauge how the learners in this classroom viewed
technology currently impacting their learning and what potential impact they believed lay
in the future as technology integration continues to develop.
Barbara had been repeatedly observed to be at the forefront of efforts to upgrade
and expand the school’s technology resources over the past two years. In reflecting on the
role technology should play in elementary classrooms, she stated:
I think it should make my job easier. I think it should make the world...the
children should have the world at their fingertips, which they basically do. If it
can take some of the drudgery out of my job, the office part of stuff that you have
to do, and focus more on learning. I think its neat when the kids can do projects
that can take some of the standards and things and incorporate them into them
coming up with something.
106
Having been in the teaching field a number of years and a part of the
technological evolution that has occurred also caused Barbara to reflect on the past as she
considered future ramifications:
When we first started using technology you went to the lab, you sat down – it was
drill and kill – and in third grade we did keyboarding. How stupid is that? That’s
not computer skills, that’s not...and I’m not saying typing is not important, it is...
but I hope they can use technology as a tool to do whatever job they need to do.
Barbara was also asked if she felt that she needed to incorporate additional
technology integration in her teaching, to which she emphatically replied, “Oh yeah, I
think I’m just at the beginning stages.” Further exploration into what she envisioned
yielded the following comment:
I just think there’s so much out there available, so many things you can do. If we
had a set of clickers [a computer-driven application that allows students to answer
multiple choice items with an infrared handheld device] and they are doing
something, they can give me their answer immediately and I can know
immediately who got it right, who got it wrong, and I can pull the kids that didn’t
get it right and do a re-teach right there immediately…right away. To me that
would make a lot more sense than by the time the kids do something on paper, by
the time I grade it and get back to them and pull that group back or whatever or
see what they’re doing...to me that would be more timely to help the kids with
their learning.
Additionally, Barbara desired to have more technology available, including
having half of her class working on computers at a given time, a SMART Board and
107
Airliner (interactive white board tools that are computer driven and tied to a video
projection system), and additional hardware and software applications as well as further
professional development to support her teaching, as she concluded, “I’ve got a long way
to go.”
When originally proposing the study, concern was expressed that this particular
class could potentially be challenging to interview due to the students being eight or nine
years old. The challenge was truly realized during the focus group as students struggled
to think beyond their current experience, preferring instead to focus on concrete concepts
having to do with student behavior and how they should treat the technology. Questions
were often pressed, reformed, and rephrased – explaining without leading to specific
answers – but the jump to the abstract often proved difficult for most who were a part of
the focus group.
Sally, for instance, felt that more technology in the class would not be a
particularly good idea, as “if they behave badly the whole class doesn’t get the
computers,” and “if someone is doing the wrong thing and we don’t have computers so
often, then they would be like oh, I’m causing us not to get the computers because I’m
being bad...so they would stop maybe.” Craig, however, felt that “we probably should use
more technology in our classroom…if we did it more often then they would get used to
the rules and maybe stop doing that and be doing what they’re supposed to.”
Students did feel that technology was making a difference in their learning even
though they had difficulty envisioning the future. Jeremy, for instance, noted that “I think
we should use technology more because it helps us learn about different stuff…it helps us
learn geography and do research.” Lisa offered that technology “helps you learn how to
108
cooperate and get research stuff,” and Tommy added, “with technology it’s a little easier
to learn, so she doesn’t have to explain all of these things and we’re doing it. If someone
has a question it makes it a little easier because she’s showing us how to do it.”
In terms of the future impact of technology in her classroom, Barbara proposed
that there would be a difference in her classroom over the next few years:
Hopefully I’m doing more technology, hopefully I will have some of those things
that I would like to have, and would hope that maybe the kids are more projectbased – where these are your parameters, see what you can come up with. Just
give them some guidelines and hopefully more of that project-based kind of stuff
that integrates everything – math, reading, writing – all inclusive.
Findings have been described in the previous pages related to learner interactions
in Barbara’s classroom, both in the presence and absence of technology as well as how
learners perceived technology’s current and potential impact of technology on learning.
The final section of this case study will explore what impact the dual role of the
researcher played in the research project.
Exploring the Researcher-Supervisor Role Conflict
As was the case in the first case study, the researcher similarly addressed the
potential researcher-supervisor role conflict from the onset of the research through the
methods previously described. Recognizing the potential of the observer effect to impact
the research subjects and the data collection process, the subject of a role conflict was
pursued during the interview process with both students and teacher.
109
In seeking to understand the impact of the observer on her classroom, Barbara
was asked to describe how she felt about her supervisor conducting this research, to
which she responded:
I was glad you were in my room, because I like for you to know what’s going
on…and to me if it had been someone else that I didn’t know or the kids didn’t
know or were comfortable with, to me they would have put on airs or done
something different. But since I think we all were so comfortable…everybody
was relaxed and doing what they would have been pretty much whether you’d
been there or not, hopefully myself included. I think it was fine because
everybody was comfortable, very comfortable with the whole thing.
Students also referred to their comfort with the researcher during the focus group
interview. Craig began the conversation by stating that he “felt nice because its like you
keep coming in like you like coming in here. It seems like we are doing a good job in
what we’re doing…it makes me feel like I’m doing a good job,” while Tommy stated that
he “felt good...I know that I have a computer expert in there that I can ask a question.”
Lisa then added, “I feel privileged that I can have someone that is really good with
computers come in and help us.”
During the conversation with Barbara, she was asked to describe how the dual
role of researcher and supervisor had impacted her teaching and day-to-day decisions in
planning for her lessons, to which she immediately responded:
It didn’t. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Maybe because of my age and doing
this so long…the one thing that you’ve made me feel very comfortable about is if
110
I can’t figure something out I can ask and you will come and help. And to me
that’s what you need, and you need it when you are having the problem.
In terms of whether the researcher’s presence affected her mode of delivering
instruction, Barbara indicated that what was observed was the “same as always…didn’t
change it. This is who I am, this is what I am, that’s it. I’m not normally a ‘dog and pony
show’ kind of person.” Students agreed that Barbara’s teaching was no different when the
researcher was present, as Lisa summarized that his being in the classroom “didn’t really
change the way she taught.”
As students and teacher reported no change in regard to Barbara’s teaching during
the research activities, an inquiry was made as to whether there was any observable
impact on how students interacted with their teacher and each other. Barbara responded
to this question with “I didn’t notice any difference. I really didn’t. Sarah wants to hang
on you, but other than that...they love you!” While usually attempting to enter classrooms
as inconspicuously as possible during the research, personal connections that had been
made with a number of students caused a bit of disruption on some occasions, although
often limited to the beginning of the observation. Students reported this effect as well,
with Sally noting that sometimes students “shout ‘Mr. Miller!’ when you’re there instead
of raising their hands,” while also asserting that they don’t ever do that with their teacher.
Students also typically reported that they usually stayed in their seats during instruction,
with Denita stating “because they need help they choose to get out of their seat” to
engage the researcher.
Although Barbara noted no appreciable difference in the students other than the
personal connections that occurred, Lisa found that at times Barbara would “get
111
frustrated about people yelling for Mr. Miller, but she thinks its ok.” Lisa also reported
one additional impact she observed with certain students, which was confirmed by the
rest of the group:
Some people in our class play games when they’re not supposed to when you’re
not in the classroom, they’ll be playing on think.com or whatever. When you’re
there they’re acting all different…they act like they have it under control and
they’re doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Barbara reflected on this student perception after reading the draft report of the
case study. She noted that students were likely referring to one particular student, as
“sometimes we have trouble getting him on me...sometimes I get focused on what’s
going on over here and not so much on what’s going on over there.”
An additional observation in terms of the potential role conflict came from the
reflections of the researcher himself, as the separation of researcher and supervisor roles
proved more difficult than originally expected. The “principal hat” had been worn for
over fifteen years, and the habit of looking at teaching and learning through the
researcher lens was a new experience. Two such occurrences were found in the data
collected fairly early in the research. One occasion questioned the instructional validity of
a student task: “What function does the blocks game play? Students were engaged with
the Palms but I was not sure what purpose there was to the game” (O.C. 10/4/2005). The
second data point was found in the observation log two weeks later, and considered the
management task of the teacher in using instructional centers in her classroom. The
reflection noted, “How does the teacher monitor what she is doing to insure productivity?
Is this an administrative or researcher question?” (O.C. 10/14/2005).
112
Such events occurred in all classrooms involved in the research as the researcher
became accustomed to this new role. The process of observing from a researcher
standpoint became easier as the study continued, and such events occurred less frequently
as noted in the fieldnotes and reflection log.
The researcher also noted a perception that he had become personally closer to the
research participants over the course of the study, and now had a much deeper
understanding of their teaching, their students, and their commitment to the task of
teaching. In pursuing whether Barbara had seen any difference in the principal/teacher
relationship resulting from the research, she stated:
I think I feel closer. I feel – you’re not a threatening person at all – but I just feel
like its more collaborative, maybe…if anything, maybe more collaborative, and
[the research] made me feel more comfortable that you know what I do every day.
Even though I think administrators kind of know what goes on in classrooms, I
think when they come in more often they get a bigger picture.
The case study discussed in the previous pages described salient findings from the
research in Barbara’s classroom. A final case study will be presented in the following
section, and stands separately from the previous discussion in its analysis and
presentation of findings.
Case Study #3 – Christie’s Classroom
The third and final case study was conducted in Christie’s classroom, also located
on the second floor of the school. The classroom is located on the north end of the
structure, in a part of the building that is not original but an early addition and similar in
appearance to the rest of the school. With dimensions measuring approximately 25 x 36
113
feet, the room is one of the largest classrooms in the school, with large expanses of
windows on the entire eastern exposure and about a fourth of the north wall as well,
reaching from approximately four feet off the floor nearly to the top of the 14-foot
ceiling. Two rows of fluorescent lights, suspended approximately six feet from the ceiling
on metal rods, provide ample artificial light for the room. While similar in appearance to
other classrooms in the school with its off-white plaster walls, detailed oak trim and
oversized oak door, the classroom has a dark, often discolored, green tile floor.
Christie’s work area is located in the southeast corner of the classroom, with her
chair sitting between a single pedestal desk often covered with teaching materials and a
computer workstation table that houses her desktop computer and printer. The furniture
arrangement allows Christie to swivel between her two work areas while remaining open
to the rest of the classroom. Across from her computer station is another table, butted
directly up to it, that contains another Windows computer and a flatbed scanner, both of
which are in a common work area for students and adults. The remainder of the south
wall is covered with a black slate chalkboard lined with butcher paper and utilized to
display student-generated work.
The west wall of the classroom is also covered by a slate chalkboard, behind
which is the classroom coat closet. Above the chalkboard is a map rail with grade level
maps appropriate to the grade level curriculum in addition to a pull-down slide screen.
The north wall is covered by a large expanse of bulletin board that serves as the
classroom “word wall,” and additional curriculum posters are seen on the walls above the
chalkboards and bulletin boards. While student desks fill the bulk of the main space of
the classroom, two additional areas are set apart from the rest. In the northeast corner, a
114
small area rug and pillows surrounded by several bookshelves and a variety of reading
materials make up a small reading and lounge area. A separate space in the northwest
corner finds a solitary table with one chair on each side set in front of the word wall. The
space was found throughout the research to be designated the conferencing table, where
Christie and individual students would meet to discuss progress on a variety of products.
Student desks in the classroom are arranged in pods of desks containing six or
seven individual desks, typically two rows of three facing one another with an additional
desk facing the others at the end of the pod. The desks are generally arranged to have
visual access to the west wall of the room, where Christie has a small table with a laptop
computer and projector set up for projection on the screen. The general arrangement of
student desks varied somewhat during the observation period, as Christie regrouped
students on a monthly basis and moved desks as needed to accommodate new seating
assignments. Christie’s 27 fifth grade students (ages 10 and 11) consisted of 15 males and
14 females, of which 21 were Caucasian, two were African American, one was American
Indian, and three were multi-racial according to student enrollment records.
A total of 12 observations were conducted in Christie’s classroom, eight of which
were short-term and unscheduled, lasting approximately 15 to 20 minutes each. Christie
also scheduled three extended observations with her choice of time and subject, each
lasting between 45 and 60 minutes. With only one exception, the observations were
conducted during the morning hours. Several issues impacted the research occurring
throughout the day, including a late lunch period for the classroom, which caused the
morning session to be nearly an hour longer than the afternoon session; the researcher
was also often engaged in his supervisory role following the lunch period. Christie
115
specifically asked not to be observed during the afternoon math period, as she had just
begun teaching math again after several years of teaming with another teacher and being
primarily responsible for the language arts area. This request was honored since she was
not comfortable with data being collected during that time frame. Finally, the last period
of the day in this classroom was used for a self-selected reading period, which after one
observation was determined to provide little to observe.
Christie is a Caucasian female in her mid-thirties who has been teaching for five
years, the last three at the research site. After beginning her college coursework at a
private, faith-based university following high school, she delayed completing her degree
after two years to begin raising a family. She returned to the university at the age of 29 to
finish her degree and begin her teaching career. While currently not holding an advanced
degree, she is contemplating beginning a masters degree program in the near future.
In an attempt to better understand the context of the classroom and the previously
conducted observations, the personal interview began by inquiring about Christie’s
philosophy of teaching. Without hesitation she stated:
I believe that I’m here to be a guide on the side. You hear that – sage on the stage,
guide on the side – and I want to be able to fulfill my responsibilities of covering
the standards and making sure the kids know content, but I also want them to
grow as people and I want to give the opportunity to be able to do that within the
classroom. I think that is as much my responsibility as it is to cover content…I
want them to have a good, positive experience and come out knowing more than
they did.
116
Although relatively new to the teaching career, Christie indicated that her
philosophy has changed somewhat in the past two years. “I think I’ve become more
understanding toward students who don’t always learn a certain way or don’t always act a
certain way or aren’t the ‘cookie cutter’ student.” She went on to reflect that she feels that
she has “a knack for helping those kids or at least attempting to, because I think that
everybody deserves to have a good experience at least one year of their school career…I
don’t think I felt that in the beginning.” In terms of how that discovery has impacted her
teaching practice, Christie added:
All kids aren’t “cookie cutter” mold – they’re different – and they’re going to
have different learning styles, but they’re also going to be just different, and I
think you have to approach them differently. And I think if one thing doesn’t
work you need to do something else, and if that doesn’t work you need to do
something else, and I don’t think I really thought about that until last year. It
really changed me...in a good way.
Research observations commenced approximately one month into the school year,
allowing time for classroom rules, procedures, and relationships to be established. A
significant number of visits found students engaged in a variety of activities as a group, at
times a major project and at other times a paired or group discussion of the content being
presented. Christie explained her pedagogical choices during the personal interview:
I’m very much project-based. I like to present a project, make sure it covers
standards, tell the kids why we’re doing it, tell them what the outcome ought to
be, and then I like to break it down. Then I like to not be up on the stage with the
kids, so I’m lecturing the kids and they’re listening to me. I like to help them to
117
complete assignments and complete projects so that they have a product that they
are proud of in the end…I’m not always able to do project-based things, some
things don’t lend themselves to that and that’s OK, but that is my preferred
method.
Christie continued with describing how she attempts to reach students with
different learning styles and abilities by noting “I feel they learn best by doing. I do try to
keep in mind my kinesthetic learners, my auditory learners, my visual learners...I’m a
visual learner myself.” She sees that using a computer and video projector at the front of
the room this year has proven an asset as “we do a lot of things with technology and I
thought I needed to have that there for the kids…I feel like they learn best by me
modeling what we’re going to do and then them doing it.”
During the student focus group interview, students noted the presence of
Christie’s preferred pedagogical devices. Jessica stated that “she does visual learning and
it helps me a lot because then I can see what I need to do,” while Andy added that her
preferred method of teaching is “by showing you.” Nathan expanded the visual
perspective by tying in the value students place on the technological aspect of Christie’s
teaching. “I think we learn the best when we see it on the projector because everybody
wants to look at it – because it’s cool and we want to know what’s going on.”
Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology
In an effort to understand how learners interact in the elementary classroom
setting coupled with the impact educational technology may have on those interactions,
teachers were purposefully selected who had demonstrated varying levels of technology
expertise and integration in their classrooms over the course of the previous year. Christie
118
had been observed to be at the forefront of using technological resources in her
classroom, often serving as a resource to her colleagues as the school’s site technology
specialist. She added on a pre-interview questionnaire that her goal in her classroom is to
“integrate technology into everyday classroom experiences…I want technology to be like
a pencil and paper are to my students.”
The school’s teaching staff had all completed an online technology basic skills
assessment at the beginning of the school year (http://profilerpro.com) as a part of the
process for planning professional development activities, and permission was received to
review the results of Christie’s self-assessment. Included in this tool are a series of
statements for rating individual knowledge in the areas of operating systems,
troubleshooting and maintenance, tool applications, internet and telecommunications, and
multimedia functions, with each item being rated as unable, adequate, familiar, or fluent.
Christie predominantly rated herself at the fluent level in all five areas of the assessment.
A review was also conducted of Christie’s mylearningplan.com professional development
portfolio, which discovered 20 technology training events attended over a period of three
years and many related to her role of site technology specialist.
In exploring this topic further, Christie was also asked to place herself on the
Levels of Adoption continuum developed through the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow
research, which included the levels of Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, and
Invention. Christie responded with wanting to place herself between Appropriation
(incorporating the technology as needed and as one of many tools) and Invention
(discovering new uses for technology tools), stating that had there been a choice between
the two “that would be me!” Reflecting further, she noted:
119
When I look at appropriation, I see project-based, interdisciplinary – that’s
me…incorporating technology as needed – that’s me. I want to have a whole
learning environment that is online, that is on the computer, that is able to be
accessed by all of the kids. I want to have forms online that they do – that is what
I want but I’m just not quite there yet.
Christie’s passion for integrating technology into her classroom was observed on
a number of occasions, while other observations found no technology being utilized at
all. The study was designed to discover what, if any, differences occurred in learner
interactions when technology was present, so the dichotomy of use provided appropriate
data to consider in interpreting this research.
Interactions in the Absence of Educational Technology
While initially setting out to categorize interactions by whether they were with
people, technology, or content, this soon proved difficult as the bulk of interactions
within the classroom centered upon the content and subject matter being presented.
Therefore, it was concluded that interactions within the classroom would be more
generally described within the context of when technology was absent followed by
additional descriptions of interactions when technology was a factor.
During approximately one third of the observed lessons, there was no technology
being used in the classroom. These lessons primarily consisted of Christie leading a
discussion or presenting information to the class, with students working individually or in
groups. On several occasions the researcher observed Christie sitting on a stool at the
front of the room as she talked to the class, often engaging in lighthearted banter with her
students. One such lesson included students working individually on a vocabulary
120
worksheet that had boxes to be filled in with vowels or consonants, and Christie would
give hints as to what the words were. Students would attempt to guess the word from the
progressive hints and be the first one to get to the right answer, holding up their hand,
wiggling at times, and even bouncing in their seat as they desired to be called on. Christie
would announce either “Correct!” or “No!” as students answered, and students with
correct answers to this “working with words” activity would excitedly go to a treat jar to
retrieve a reward. Although this lesson was largely teacher directed and interactions
primarily teacher to student, fieldnotes indicated that students “appeared engaged in the
activity and were filling in the appropriate words as they worked through the worksheet”
(O.C. 9/26/2005).
Two non-technology lessons were observed to exhibit what the fieldnotes referred
to as “high levels of engagement.” In the first, students were found to be working in
several groups spread around the room with most groups gathered around a cluster of
desks. Each group exhibited high levels of involvement and engagement as they worked
on several different assignments related to a program about Vietnam they would later
present to the entire school. Fieldnotes provided further description about the activities
found within the groups:
One group was talking about how to plan a skit that would present the statistics.
One was working on building a time machine that they could tie into the
presentation, and also was working to divide the research needing done between
the members of the group. Another was planning a TV show that would cover
part of the material, which would be videotaped in order for one student to be a
121
part of the presentation who was going to be out of town for a cancer checkup.
(O.C. 10/13/2005)
Throughout this lesson Christie was observed to move around the room from group to
group and ask questions about what they were doing, at times prompting students to elicit
further thoughts or information to provide clarity to their project.
Another occasion found Christie located at the front of the class leading a lesson
on text structure – an activity initially described as an independent teacher directed
activity. Students had a laminated “text structure work mat” on their desks and a selection
of text passages, and Christie would instruct students to read the passage and individually
determine what text structure type would be the best choice, e.g. descriptive, cause and
effect, compare and contrast. After a few moments however, Christie instructed the
groups of students to work together collaboratively to arrive at a group answer, at which
point groups would be asked to share their answer with the rest of the class. If unclear,
she prompted for further information with statements such as “why do you think that is
compare and contrast?” or “tell me more.” On one particular passage, Christie asked
students to place their “finger on the organizer you think fits this story.” After quickly
surveying the room she noted, “I only see two people who are correct,” followed by an
explanation that “this is a tricky one” and the class then working together to fill out a
graphic organizer appropriate for the passage.
Group activities much like those described above were observed on a number of
occasions during data collection, often enough that fieldnotes reflected “group work is
often a norm” (O.C. 11/30/2005). Students also described other activities during the focus
group interview that were not observed during the research. Ashley noted that Christie at
122
times lets students “teach the class certain things…if someone else knew something
better than the rest of the class, she would let them teach a little bit about it and how they
found an easy way to do it.” Katelynn described a previous lesson where separate groups
collaboratively researched and contributed to a project on the branches of government.
After researching their topic, the groups developed a poster and “wrote little sketches on
the poster…then everyone would come back in the classroom and we’d put them on the
board and everybody in the group would have a certain part they would read from the
poster.”
While a few lessons were observed that didn’t involve any educational technology
at all, the majority of lessons seen in Christie’s classroom would be technology intense.
Significant examples of learner interactions in the presence of technology were found to
provide a contrast to the interactions described above.
Interactions in the Presence of Educational Technology
The majority of observations in Christie’s classroom found at least some level of
technology being utilized, from a minimum of the teacher’s computer being projected on
a screen to each and every student having a laptop computer on their desk. Interactions in
the presence of educational technology will be explored in the following paragraphs.
In one such lesson, the observation began toward the end of the math block. A
final activity of the lesson included the students working on a math facts application on
the classroom set of handheld computers. Fieldnotes indicated that, while students were
not interacting at all with one another, they all “appeared to be engaged with what they
were doing.” Following the conclusion of the lesson, and in what was found to be a
typical daily activity, the students pulled out their academic planners while Christie
123
stationed herself at her laptop at the front of the room. The class reviewed what they had
done during the day, telling Christie what to write on the projected document.
Following the completion of their planner activity and homework reminders, they
proceeded to copy down the information into their individual planners. The projector and
laptop at the front of the room was utilized a great deal in the classroom, even in the
absence of other technologies. Christie indicated that she had found this tool very helpful
for visual learners, as “they learn best when I break things down and I make sure they
know step by step what we’re going to do,” also noting that, “I can’t believe I didn’t use
this last year!”
Laptop computers were found to be an integral part of a number of the observed
lessons. Interactions between learners varied with the activity prescribed by the teacher,
and two examples are provided to demonstrate the differences observed in learner
interactions.
The first lesson found the teacher sitting at the conferencing table, where she
would call students one at a time to come discuss their progress on a current writing
project. While this activity was occurring, most of the remaining students sat quietly at
their desks with one of the school’s Macintosh iBook wireless laptops on their desks; one
student was working with a handheld computer and wireless keyboard, while another had
an encyclopedia on his desk. Most students had completed a paper story web prior to this
lesson, and were proceeding to complete internet research on various topics found within
their individual graphic organizers. Notes taken during this observation reflected “very
little interaction was observed other than an occasional comment to me about what they
were working on” (O.C. 11/28/2005).
124
Christie talked about the variety of expectations for her students during the
personal interview, and particularly referenced the above lesson:
I think they do know that my expectation is when we are doing whole group, and
when I am up and I am on the stage that they need to be quiet, that they need to be
listening – actively listening – and participating, especially if there’s a discussion.
I think they know, too, when its time to do Writer’s Workshop…that it’s time for
conferencing.
Jessica noted these differences as well when she stated, “sometimes she lets us talk, but
most of the time we’re quiet and listening to her.”
On another occasion all students were again found to be working with a wireless
laptop. A previously observed lesson was related to this particular observation, and at that
time they were planning for a PowerPoint slideshow they would compose as an “alphabet
retelling” of a self-selected novel they had read. Prior to this lesson students had
handwritten how they would compose their retelling on paper templates, which included
a series of statements utilizing all 26 letters of the alphabet to begin their sentences while
keeping the retelling in chronological order.
The observation was conducted as the students were beginning to move their
paper template to electronic form, and students were visiting with one another as they
worked. As the researcher walked around the room observing the lesson, students were
observed to be working independently, and Ethan asked the researcher for assistance in
importing a graphic for one of his slides. As Christie maneuvered around the classroom
helping students as needed, it was noted that Ethan had moved to another student’s desk
and was assisting him with importing a graphic into his presentation. The phenomenon of
125
inserting clipart began to spread around the room, and the researcher was soon pulled into
the lesson as students came for additional help with the process. After showing Carrie
how to complete the task, she was soon after at Kim’s desk helping her with the same
process. Carrie called from across the room and asked, “Do you click yes?" Following
the affirmation of her demonstration she continued to assist Kim and others around her.
The students as teachers phenomenon continued as Ethan assisted additional
students and was asked by Christie to help Andy, to which he replied “in a minute” since
he was helping another student at the time. Allen volunteered that “I can” and went to the
student in need, helping with the skill that Ethan had shared with him just a few minutes
earlier. Even with the students helping one another throughout the lesson, fieldnotes
indicated that it was “very quiet in the room today...students are spread around the room,
some at desks, some at tables, some going to hallway to work on a digital video for their
website portfolio” (O.C. 10/25/2005).
Christie indicated an awareness of students’ comfort in helping their peers as they
utilized educational technology in her room, stating during the personal interview:
You find a lot more collaboration when we’re doing a web quest or when we’re
doing any kind of online searches or when they’re doing research...I think they’re
more apt to help a kid who is trying to Google search something than one who is
trying to find something in an encyclopedia. I just think it lends itself to a more
collaborative environment.
Students also noted how they were able to work with their peers when they had a
level of expertise to share, as Dan found “if someone is having a problem on the
computer, like connecting to the server or something, they can call you over and you can
126
help them with that,” with Samantha adding “sometimes she’ll show us how to do things
and then we can show other students in our class and stuff like that.”
The observations made of students at times taking a teaching role during lessons
involving technology were explored during a follow-up interview with Christie, to which
she added, “It gives them a feeling of self-worth, to be able to teach somebody else how
to do something.” She also professed a belief that those feelings of self-worth, coupled
with success in being able to teach a peer, translated into increased connections with
teachers and a desire to perform at a higher level in other curriculum areas.
The role of technology in this classroom was also discussed with Christie during
the initial personal interview, where she saw very little difference from where she
currently is and where she wants to go with the use of technology tools:
I think it should be – we talk about “just in time” with technology – I want
technology to be as common as a pencil and paper in my classroom. It’s not going
to be yet, because it’s still new…or relatively new. But I’m seeing that it’s not as
new as it was last year, as new as it was the year before. I don’t want them to be
so enamored of the technology that they’re not learning…I want it to be a tool. I
strive to do that every day. I don’t know if I succeed, but I try.
Students added to the conversation about technology’s role in their classroom
during the focus group, with Ashley noting that “I think she likes teaching better with the
technology because more kids like it,” and Jessica adding “I think she really likes
technology a lot because she enjoys using it.” Nathan summarized with “we use it a
lot…that’s basically all we use for assignments and stuff.”
127
Technology appeared to play a significant role in this classroom as demonstrated
in the lessons described above. Further information about how the classroom’s occupants
perceived any impact educational technology is having on their learning would serve to
strengthen the understanding of the observed interactions.
Learner Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning
Lessons that involved some form of educational technology often appeared to
have higher levels of student engagement and interest than lessons without technology.
Christie reflected about this perception with her own learning over the past few years,
noting that she began teaching with no technology and then was provided a classroom set
of six handheld computers for a special project. Even with such a limited amount of
technology to work with, she found:
It just opened up a whole new world to me. I saw my kids engaged and learning
and doing, and I was just amazed and I really had to stop and I thought to myself,
ok, this is what I want to do, this is how I want to do it, this is the way I want to
go, and I made a decision right then that I wanted to try to integrate technology as
much as I could into my classroom.
Christie also referred to a conversation with a peer consultant teacher from outside her
school, who told her “this is you, this is your gift, you need to do this, you’re very good
with this...this is really your strength,” and the experience “really changed how I was
doing some things to make sure I was using technology.”
Students in Christie’s classroom also reported on their learning being impacted by
her integration of technology into their lessons. Ashley simply stated at the beginning of
the discussion:
128
I think the technology helps kids want to learn more about what we’re doing and
she’ll let us do it on the Palm or something. Or when we’re typing something –
more kids want to do it because they get to work with the technology, which is
fun…I think they like to learn better when they’re working with the technology.
Susan continued the conversation with “I think technology is more fun for the kids to
learn, and it’s more attractive,” and Andy echoed “They like to use the technology to
learn.”
Unlike the other two case studies, learners reported that they used technology “a
lot,” “all the time,” and “almost every day…actually we do use it every day.” Christie
reflected that:
I feel like as far as handhelds, the laptops, internet connectivity – I think we’re
where we want to be. I’m pleased with that. I think I could do different things, but
I don’t know that I could do a lot more right now...I feel like I’m where I need to
be with technology.
Students affirmed Christie’s intense use of technology by reflecting that they
couldn’t or shouldn’t use technology more than the current level, with Ashley finding
“we use technology a lot, and I think we use it enough,” while Samantha added “I think
we probably do it as much as we should.”
Another finding that surfaced during the focus group interview with students was
that technology was allowing students to interact more with their peers. Dan, for instance,
stated that “if you really didn’t know them that well you can get to know them maybe a
tad bit better” while helping other students with technology problems, e.g. connecting
with the server, and others confirmed that helping one another often led to interactions
129
with students with whom they typically would not interact socially. Additional discussion
centered on the use of think.com, a secure student-generated global online community.
Katelynn stated, “On think.com you can leave stickies and interact more, and also their
pages might tell about them,” and Susan offered that “you can go to think.com to their
sites, and find out what they like, and you can see what they like.”
Nathan also noted that using the handheld computers in the classroom sometimes
led to similar interactions with students outside an immediate circle of friends:
If we don’t have a game, we go to other people and see if they have the game, and
if they have the game we either try to see if we can use their Palm and play on
it…or they can beam us a game. And then we start talking because they beamed
you that game and you want to be nice to them and thank them.
This example triggered another thought from Jessica a few minutes later in terms
of working with one another on the technology team:
I went to install a computer with another student that I don’t necessarily talk to
because I think she’s kind of weird, and so we could talk about technology while
we were installing this computer, like what cord went into which little slot...it was
really interesting.
Findings related to learner interactions in Christie’s classroom have been
described in the previous sections, including learner interactions in the absence and in the
presence of technology, as well as how learners have perceived the impact technology is
having on their learning environment. A final section of the case study will investigate
the impact of the researcher’s dual role as researcher and supervisor on the participants
and the research project.
130
Exploring the Researcher-Supervisor Role Conflict
As a result of this study being conducted in a setting where the researcher
simultaneously served as principal and supervisor of staff and students, additional
attention was given to the potential role conflict that might exist as the researcher was in
an out of classrooms multiple times each day. As in the previous case studies, a large
nametag identifying the researcher as such was worn during data collection activities, and
students were made aware of the project prior to it commencing. The researcher
continued to be aware that the research participants were likely to consider him in his
predominant role of principal as he was in and out of their classroom. Thus an
exploration into this potential observer effect was explored with participants during the
interview sessions.
When asked how she felt about the researcher conducting the research in her
classroom, Christie responded quickly, “It didn’t bother me at all.” She continued by
explaining that, as a technology savvy teacher, she had been the subject of many
observations and visitors over the years, which “really conditioned me.” Christie went on
to explain:
I’m not nervous about that just because I feel like for the most part I’m doing
what I should be doing when I should be doing it. My philosophy has always been
that I should teach like there was a parent sitting in my room, so I do. It hasn’t
really bothered me that you’ve been in there. I also feel like you’re probably in
my room more than you are in other rooms just because of the technology
aspect…I feel like we interact more than you do with some teachers, so I wasn’t
bothered by it.
131
Likewise, in response to how the dual role had impacted her day-to-day decisions
in her classroom, she stated, “I don’t think it did…is that bad?” while adding that the
presence of the researcher did not impact her instructional delivery “at all.” Students
offered similar information, with Susan noting that “she sees you – she’s used to it –
she’s comfortable around you because she doesn’t act like she’s scared,” and Ashley
offering, “I couldn’t really tell if she was trying to teach any better or anything.”
While looking at the impact of the research on the teacher, the interviews also
inquired as to any possible impact on the student participants. Christie noted, “The
students are also used to you being in the room. I feel like they were being pretty honest,
pretty typical, they weren’t acting much different than they do normally.” Students
reacted to the researcher’s presence in a positive manner, with Katelynn finding “I think
that you’re helpful to us if we’re doing a project and [our teacher] can’t help us right now
because she’s helping another person…you’re like an extra teacher and can come and
help us.” Jessica added a comparison, with “Last year, you didn’t come in our classroom
as much and we got really tense when you came in. This year when you came in it was
just like...hey!” Another student contributed that students “got used to you being there,”
while Andy added “you can barely tell you’re in there because you are so quiet...you just
walk into the classroom and go to the back of the classroom...it’s like you’re not even
there.”
Students indicated that a few students did appear to be impacted by the
researcher’s presence to some extent, with Ashley observing “I think that some kids act
like they know what they’re doing more when you’re in there...if they don’t know
something they try to act like they do,” and Samantha adding “some people might behave
132
a little better.” In reflecting about these student comments after having an opportunity to
read the draft case study, Christie believed that the comments were a result of students’
“preconceived notion of what goes on when you are in the room...I don’t really feel like
the kids are ever like that in my classroom because you’re there so much.”
An unexpected impact came in terms of the initial difficulty of separating roles by
the researcher himself. With many years of observing classrooms from an administrative
point of view, looking at classrooms from an unbiased research standpoint was a new
experience for the researcher and required a period of adjustment to the new role. One
such reflection was found early in the data collection when the researcher noted, “I was
looking at the appropriateness of the vocabulary in this lesson…need to focus on
interactions!” (O.C. 9/26/2005). Another example came in reference to one student who
often was a challenge for the teacher due to negative behavior, and was a periodic visitor
to the school office for disciplinary action. The researcher commented on this student in
the fieldnotes, e.g. “Phillip made numerous comments during the period, most about
skateboarding, some sarcastic. Were these for my benefit? Did the teacher even hear
him?” (O.C. 10/31/2006). Adjusting to the researcher role required a period of time and
redirection of the researcher’s observation skills. As the study progressed, the
occurrences of these events became less frequent, and the researcher became increasingly
aware of when the supervisor role was slipping into the observation process and
fieldnotes.
One additional reflection, following the data analysis and a period of processing
the findings, was that the researcher felt more professionally engaged with the adult
participants. An entry in the researcher’s journal indicated that the process of conducting
133
the research had demonstrated how “non-threatening observations in classrooms, when
there is an element of trust, can assist in strengthening relationships in schools – while at
the same time assuring those being observed that you value them as employees and
friends.” In a follow up interview, Christie was asked how she perceived any differences
in the researcher/researched relationship, to which she responded “I think you’ve been in
my room a little more than last year…but I think I’ve always communicated what I’m
doing and when I’m excited about something.” A moment later she added, “I feel like we
worked pretty well together last year, too…I didn’t feel a big difference, I think we were
already there.”
The findings of the three case studies, resulting from a period of data collection
and analysis, have been presented in the previous pages as separate descriptive case
studies. To conclude this report, a final chapter follows that presents a discussion of the
findings from across the case studies in addition to a number of conclusions that were
drawn from the research.
134
CHAPTER 5
Discussion and Conclusions
The findings from this research project were presented in the previous chapter in
the form of individual descriptive case studies. As the report continues, a number of
conclusions gleaned from the research findings will be presented in this final chapter. The
chapter is organized in a similar manner as the case studies, and focuses upon exploring
the conclusions derived from the data by emphasizing Teaching Philosophy and
Pedagogy, Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology, Learner Interactions and
Pedagogical Choices, Learner Interactions and Educational Technology, Learner
Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning, and finally, Observer
Effect on the Research. Following the presentation of the conclusions, a discussion of the
implications of this research is presented to conclude the chapter.
Teaching Philosophy and Pedagogy
Every teacher develops a personal philosophy of teaching that influences their
daily planning, instructional delivery, and connections with their students – their own
personal teaching style – that Heimlich and Norland (2002) defined as incorporating the
“beliefs, values, attitudes, working philosophy, skills, and personality” of the teacher (p.
19). The manner in which teachers teach was also referenced by Stitt-Gohdes (2001) and
Sandholtz et al. (1997), who posited that most teachers teach in the same manner that
they learn. While personal teaching styles may be adjusted over time due to personal
experiences and professional opportunities, the learner is most often left to adjusting their
style of learning to the teaching style of the teacher (Brown, 2003).
135
The research project described in these pages found three teachers, selected
purposefully for their distinct teaching styles and use of educational technology, who
held markedly different philosophies and beliefs as well as varied pedagogical
approaches to teaching. Anna, in the first case study, was inspired by a desire to help
students become “successful and productive” citizens not dependent on government
assistance. Her drive to reach this goal was accompanied by a preferred teaching style
that included a “quiet classroom” where she is in control of the learning process in order
to guide and watch what her students are doing. Anna has approached the integration of
technology in her classroom cautiously, struggling with students being responsible for
their own learning and concerned with “wasted time.”
The second case study found Barbara, whose philosophy was predominantly
fueled by her personal belief that her classroom is like “a family” and where the primary
focus is “helping the kids…helping each other.” Pedagogically, Barbara admitted being
drawn to the “science model” that enables students to discover learning in their own
manner, with her providing guidance and the tools students need to accomplish the
desired outcome. Technology use and integration in her classroom fit within her
philosophy of discovery as Barbara and her students learned together.
Christie, the teacher in the third case study, embraced a philosophy to be the
“guide on the side,” where she helps students to “grow as people” while having a “good
experience” in her classroom. She also expressed a desire to be aware of students’
differing styles of learning, with a preference for delivering “project-based” instruction
that allows for student choices and differences in learning styles while completing
projects that result in student products “that they are proud of in the end.” Integration of
136
technology in Christie’s classroom appeared to be given extensive attention as she strived
to have technology function as a tool and be “as common as paper and pencil.”
A variety of guiding philosophies were found in these classrooms, accompanied
by teaching styles and pedagogies that the participants believed to best serve the needs of
their students. Evidence was consistently found throughout the research that indicated
that the teachers selected particular modes of instruction that closely aligned with their
personal philosophy and beliefs about the process of teaching. Based on the research in
these three classrooms and the resultant findings, it was concluded that there is a
definitive connection between each teacher’s guiding philosophy and beliefs and the
pedagogical tools they employ in the delivery of instruction to their students. Significant
to this connection is that when a new tool or method of instruction, e.g. the integration of
educational technology, is introduced and perceived as contrary to their guiding
philosophy (as in the case of Anna), adoption of such an innovation is difficult to
embrace.
Intertwined within these varied teaching styles also lay each individual teacher’s
preference for interactions within their classrooms. Anna’s preference for control of the
learning environment supported how students were arranged within her classroom and
expected to engage in discussions at her direction and when called upon. The climate in
Barbara’s classroom was often loosely structured and students were observed consistently
engaging their teacher and one another while participating in learning activities.
Christie’s classroom, fed by her desire for students to work with one another on projectbased activities as she facilitated the process, often resulted in students regularly
interacting with one another as they collaborated on assignments. The data from these
137
three classrooms thus led to the conclusion that the guiding philosophies and beliefs of
teachers have a significant impact on how students interact with their teacher and one
another during the learning process.
During the investigation of philosophical and pedagogical issues with students,
they consistently indicated an understanding of how their teachers teach. Although not
speaking as adults would in reference to this subject, their perceptions were aligned with
what their teachers had reported. In Anna’s class, for example, students described her
teaching as showing “what we’re supposed to do” and following with a worksheet to do
“as homework,” while also noting that “she makes you pay attention and learn.”
Barbara’s students explained that she helps students learn “by doing things that are fun”
and by helping students to “figure out how to do it better.” Students in Christie’s
classroom also described their teacher’s preferred pedagogical techniques as “she does
visual learning” and that she teaches “by showing you.”
In light of the data presented in the findings related to student perceptions of
pedagogical issues, it was concluded that students are definitively cognizant of how their
teachers present instructional material. Findings also indicated that elementary students
willingly accept the pedagogical techniques utilized in their classrooms as normal in the
context of their current classroom assignment, regardless of other teaching styles they
have been exposed to or with little reference to how students perceive they learn best. It
was thus concluded that elementary students readily accept their teachers as experts, and
that their method of teaching is the “right way.”
138
Teacher Comfort with Educational Technology
Within the context of this research project, the frequency of use and integration of
educational technology into instruction was widely varied as a result of the purposeful
selection of teachers who were perceived to possess different teaching styles and skill
sets in the use of these tools. Anna, who had experienced very little training in the use of
technology and possessed a healthy skepticism of its place in her classroom, employed
very little technology in her classroom. When attempting technology integration, she tied
such usage to current instructional practice, e.g. reading from the computer instead of a
book, or completing an individual assignment electronically. Anna’s own assessment of
her skills rated her as unable or unfamiliar with many of the functions of educational
technology, basically using the computers as “a word processor or as a typewriter.” She
described herself as “between the Adoption and Adaptation” levels of technology
adoption, and indicated that she was trying to learn more about using technology in her
classroom and that such attempts have led to “better planning” of her lessons.
In the second case study, Barbara indicated that she had experienced a moderate
level of training in the use of technology tools, and rated herself as adequate and familiar
in most areas of a technology skills assessment, while stating that she was “on a learning
curve” as she and her students were “learning together.” Barbara, in reviewing the levels
of adoption descriptions, suggested that she was currently integrating technology into
traditional practice.
Christie, in the final case study, was found to have experienced significant
training in the use of technology resources. She rated herself as fluent on all but one
subset of a technology skills assessment, while incorporating technology into project-
139
based, interdisciplinary units and utilizing such devices as tools to support instruction and
student learning – each of these components supporting her self-placement at the
Appropriation level of technology adoption. Christie’s current use of technology varied
from individual project-based assignments to technology-rich research projects and group
collaboration as she sought to fulfill a vision of a fully integrated electronic classroom.
For two of the participating teachers, college coursework was completed over two
decades ago when technological resources were in their infancy and teacher preparation
in the use of technology, according to Anna and Barbara, was limited to introductory
computer classes and audio-visual tools, e.g. using a filmstrip projector and properly
threading a movie projector. Interestingly enough, Christie also indicated that she had
experienced only one college class that focused on technology during her coursework as
well, even with her teacher preparation coursework occurring within the last several
years.
As additional technology has become available, teachers have often been left to
their own devices to learn how to use these tools by experience or by seeking out
additional professional development on their own. The purposeful use of such
technologies has been tied to the individual teacher’s pedagogical beliefs and values (Cox
et al., 2003), while successful implementation occurs as teachers reflectively tie these
tools and applications to their own pedagogical beliefs (Zhao et al., 2002). In looking at
these three classroom teachers and their placement on a continuum of technology use
(Coughlin & Lemke, 1999; Dwyer et al., 1990a; Newhouse et al., 2002b), a living portrait
is provided to demonstrate the wide variety of technology knowledge and skills found
within a single school.
140
As individual teachers pursue further professional development, they must also
see a benefit to incorporating new tools while adjusting their practice with new skill sets
and resources (Pisapia et al., 2000), as they simultaneously recognize the importance of
educational technology as a tool for learning (Heath et al., 2000). An example of this
phenomenon was observed in the first case study, as Anna had experienced minimal
professional development in the use of technology, was less than willing to change her
instructional methods by giving over control of learning to students, and thus chose to
continue practices that matched her philosophy and beliefs. The second case, while
featuring a more experienced teacher than the first, found Barbara willing to pursue
additional resources and training to expand her teaching arsenal coupled with a desire to
incorporate new learning into her classroom, often learning along with and from her
students. The third case study found a recent college graduate, Christie, with significant
time and training in the use of technology, and like the first case study pursuing teaching
practices that matched her philosophy and beliefs, even though the teaching behaviors of
both teachers were substantially different.
Substantial efforts to provide classrooms with the best technological tools
available were observed within this study, while little evidence was found to support
more than an initial site-based effort to train teachers to use such tools and thoroughly
integrate them into their teaching practice and philosophy. As such, teachers were often
left to their own devices to incorporate these tools into their daily practice. In applying
Piaget’s theory of accommodation (Piaget, 1962) – the application of previous learning
and understanding to new experiences – to an adult learning context, the findings of this
study suggest that new learning can take place when teachers have an innate sense of
141
discovery and desire to expand their arsenal of teaching tools, as seen in the second case
study. Such accommodation can happen when strong foundations to new learning are not
significantly in the past and provide a springboard to new learning, as observed in the
third case study. The accommodation of new skills can also happen, as observed in the
first case study, when teachers are provided a motivation to learn new skills and
subsequently observe positive student reaction to the use of new practice.
The minimal site-based training found at this school, in combination with the
teachers’ professional development experiences and stated comfort level with technology,
led to the following conclusion: In order for teachers to make substantial and meaningful
use of the technological tools at their disposal, while at the same time adjusting or
changing their pedagogical approaches, opportunities to subsume new learning into
previous knowledge must be consistently provided in a manner that differentiates
instruction to meet the needs of individual teachers.
An additional caveat to the research process, and one deeply woven into the fabric
of the emergent design of the research, was found in the impact the research had on
teacher introspection and self-analysis. This was perhaps most evident as the three
teacher participants had opportunities to discuss the research with one another and
provide the researcher with their additional insights following a review of the preliminary
findings as well as during ensuing discussions as the project neared its completion.
Participation in this project in effect became a source of professional development for the
teachers involved. As a result of observing these teachers learn about technology and
about themselves by participating in the research process, it was concluded that teachers
benefit significantly from involvement in activities that challenge them to look deeply at
142
their own practice and to be active learners as they dare to incorporate these new
practices into their classrooms.
Evidence was repeatedly observed within these classrooms that as teachers grew
more comfortable with the technological tools at their disposal and began to integrate the
use of technology more deeply into their pedagogical practice, interactions between
classroom occupants often increased and became more student-centered, and often
resulted in the teachers relinquishing some level of control of the learning process to their
students. Thus it was also concluded that increased interactions between students and
teachers, particularly as teachers give away control to their students and learn along with
them and from them, contribute to a more collaborative environment where all
inhabitants of the classroom learn from each other.
Learner Interactions and Pedagogical Choices
Throughout the three case studies, interactions between the occupants of the
classrooms were observed and findings related to when technology was absent and when
it was present during the observations were presented. Increasingly throughout the study,
it was noted that interactions within these two scenarios were often very similar, and as
such this discussion now considers the impact teaching techniques, or pedagogical
choices, have on how learners interact within the elementary classroom.
A variety of teaching styles was observed across and within each of the three
classrooms. Anna, a typically traditional teacher, was observed to also utilize a very
constructivist approach to teaching science in one observation. Barbara and Christie, both
who tend to be more project-based and group oriented on a regular basis, also employed
teacher-driven direct instruction at times. It is a salient note then, that when pedagogical
143
choices changed within these classrooms, the level of learner interactions often changed
as well. When Anna, for example, moved to a group-oriented lesson, the interactions of
learners significantly increased as they worked with one another. In the other two
classrooms, occasional forays into a direct instruction mode resulted in far less student
interaction than was seen in the bulk of the observations.
When activities were teacher-driven, interactions in all three classrooms were
observed to be primarily teacher to student and often in the form of question-response.
Observational fieldnotes indicated that such lessons were “tightly structured” as students
worked independently; discussion between learners was present while the teachers
controlled the ebb and flow of the conversation by calling on students, allowing
comments, and answering questions. Student to student interactions were also seen
throughout the observations as students at times worked in pairs or small groups toward
the completion of a common task; such interactions between students were primarily
observed to be focused at finding information to complete an assignment, and typically
controlled for time and content by the teacher.
During particular group activities, the interactions between all the occupants of
the classrooms increased significantly, especially when students were assigned a task that
required higher levels of collaboration and communication in order to successfully
complete the task at hand – tasks that were often referred to as “fun” by the students in
each of the classrooms. It was within these lessons – from the science “button lesson” in
Anna’s classroom, to the “centers activities” in Barbara’s classroom, to the “Vietnam
project” in Christie’s classroom – that higher levels of engagement and interest in the
lesson content were consistently observed in addition to increased interaction as learners
144
interacted with the content and each other. These lessons, both when technology was
present and when it was not, were structured in such a way as to reflect a constructivist
orientation. Lessons of this orientation were often presented as a project students worked
on collaboratively as they searched for solutions, and as such were increasingly studentcentered with teachers taking a facilitative role in the process. This pedagogical approach,
often referred to as problem-based learning (PBL), provided opportunities to acquire
critical knowledge while increasing the learners’ proficiency in problem solving and
collaboration (Maricopa Center for Learning & Instruction, 2001).
Seminal writers of constructivist learning theory thoroughly portrayed the
responsibility of teachers and how their pedagogical choices could impact the quality of
student learning. Dewey (1933) noted that students are themselves responsible for the
initiative required to learn, as the teacher – or facilitator – “steers the boat” (p. 36), while
experiences that captivate the learner engage them in deeper levels of understanding.
When approaching instruction with higher levels of activity and interaction with others
within student-centered learning experiences, teachers assist students in respecting their
own powers of thinking and analysis through the natural curiosity inherent in children
(Bruner, 1961). Others, noted earlier in this document (Ausubel, 1968; Piaget, 1983;
Vygotsky, 1978), echoed the sentiments expressed above – pedagogical techniques that
deeply engage the learner result in better understanding and prepare them for learning
that will occur throughout their lifetime.
This study did not look at the measurement of various levels of student academic
achievement per se, but nonetheless from the data presented it could be inferred that as
students engage at higher levels with content, with each other, and with their teacher,
145
their level of understanding and academic performance will increase. Within the context
of this research it was apparent that these phenomena do not happen in isolation or
accidentally, which led to the conclusion that teachers dramatically control the interaction
of learners – with content and with one another – by the pedagogical choices they employ
in their classrooms. Additionally, it can be concluded that when teachers utilize studentcentered problem and project-based activities within their classroom instruction,
motivation, engagement, and learner interactions significantly increase.
Learner Interactions and Educational Technology
The use of educational technology varied significantly across and within the three
case studies throughout the research project. The findings noted that students often
“worked independently” on assignments involving available technology – whether on
individual desktop, handheld, or laptop computers. It was during these activities that
learner interactions were often seen to be minimal and reflective of the individual
teacher’s preference for students visiting while they worked on particular assignments. In
a loosely structured classroom, for example, students were observed to regularly visit
with one another while they worked. While in a more tightly structured classroom,
however, student interaction was limited based on the teacher’s proclivity to control the
classroom climate while students worked individually.
This weaving of technology into traditional teaching practice was classified by
Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz (1990a) as the “adoption” level of technology
integration, and the beginning of an evolutionary process teachers move through as they
learn to incorporate higher levels of technology integration into their teaching (Dwyer,
1994). The use of technology to support traditional practice allows an initial level of
146
comfort for teachers and students and often leads to more constructivist approaches of
teaching and learning as the evolution continues (Vahey & Crawford, 2002). The three
teachers in this study, while at different places on this evolutionary continuum, were all
observed to use technology within traditional learning environments during the research,
in the course of which learner interactions were often minimal. Given the data collected
throughout the observations and the support of earlier research, it was concluded that
when technology is utilized to support traditional modes of instruction, learner
interactions are not significantly different from lessons devoid of technology and are
directly related to individual teachers’ teaching styles and expectations as students work
independently.
In addition to the lesson types described above, data also indicated that students
were often more engaged in the learning process and actively pursuing the completion of
a required task within these traditionally structured lessons. This resulted at times in a
“buzz of noise” as students worked individually on their assignments and were allowed to
occasionally collaborate with one another for troubleshooting, formatting, or sharing their
learning. This even occurred in Anna’s classroom to some extent as a result of her
allowing students to assist one another with instructional tools that challenged her
knowledge and expertise. The use of laptops had been observed in the literature to often
result in more focused individual work (Russell et al., 2004) while also increasing
collaboration between learners (Rockman ET AL, 1998), and the use of technology in
general was observed to even positively contribute to a school’s social environment
(Wenglinsky, 1998). Students in this study explained their engagement in technology
related tasks as resulting from the use of technology making learning “more fun,” “more
147
interesting,” and “hands on,” even when employed as a technological application of a
traditional tool, e.g. an electronic reading basal or encyclopedia. In light of the data and
findings from this study, it was concluded that the use of educational technology, even
when directed toward independent tasks, results in increased student motivation and
engagement in the learning process.
Also found within the three case studies were a number of lessons involving
technology that resulted in more intense levels of interaction. Students were observed
helping one another on many occasions and often collaborating on a specific task. While
the lesson content did not appear significantly different than those observations discussed
above, constructivist oriented pedagogical choices made by the teachers appeared to open
the door to increased levels of interaction. Such choices often resulted in students
becoming teachers in a sense – gathering information, teaching one another, and sharing
their knowledge of technological applications and curriculum content.
As found in previous research, the students in this study often served as resources
for their peers throughout the observations as they had particular knowledge that they
could share (Rockman, 2003), and such events occurred with students across a wide
range of ability levels (Bebell, 2005). The collaboration that emerged while students
interacted with technology also contributed to increased communication between students
and with their teachers. Students indicated a benefit from helping one another and at
times helping their teachers learn something new, while also noting that they were getting
to know one another better while working with educational technology. The teachers also
referenced these events, as students “learn to respect one another,” and that they find “a
lot more collaboration” when students are working with educational technology. A key
148
difference between these observations and the independently focused technology lessons
was the teacher’s decision to instruct students in a group-oriented, collaborative setting.
As a result of these findings, it was concluded that the integration of educational
technology into the teaching and learning process contributes to increased
communication and collaboration among learners when students are allowed to work
with one another toward a common goal.
In each of the classrooms, occurrences were also observed where students stepped
to the forefront of the teaching process, in effect taking over the teaching process as the
teacher stepped aside. One student described this phenomenon as the teacher getting
“kicked off” as students “take over.” These moments occurred as teachers ventured into
lesson presentations that were grounded in constructivist concepts – where students take
control of their own learning as teachers guide and facilitate the learning process that
occurs naturally – and were often accompanied by higher levels of critical thinking and
analysis than observed in other more traditional lessons. Of particular note in two of the
classrooms were students who often struggled academically; during technology-rich
lessons these students were observed to engage at higher levels and assist in the teaching
process as they found a medium that leveled their ability with that of their peers.
The use of such occasional constructivist pedagogy occurred in all three
classrooms, notably both when technology was present and when it was not. This
observation challenged an initial research assumption that the integration of technology
into instruction would naturally lead to more constructivist learning experiences in the
classrooms under study. An important caveat to consider, however, is that these
experiences were observed more often when technology was in use and when students
149
were allowed considerable freedom in the design and direction of their own learning.
When teachers purposefully engaged in constructivist teaching and learning activities and
utilized educational technology as a tool within these lessons, students were observed to
readily embrace a teaching role as their teachers allowed them to have more control of
the learning process. After observing these classrooms and analyzing the data collected
throughout the research process, it was concluded that while constructivist teaching and
learning are not dependent on technology – or an immediate outgrowth of its use –
educational technology provides a learner-centered pedagogical tool that can significantly
contribute to meaningful constructivist practice when thoughtfully integrated into
instruction.
Learner Perceptions of Educational Technology’s Impact on Learning
Throughout the research process, and across all three classrooms, higher levels of
engagement and interest in the learning process were consistently noted during
observations that utilized educational technology. This factor was repeatedly observed
throughout the technology research, whether dated (e.g. Idaho Council for Technology in
Learning, 1999; Ringstaff et al., 1996) or more recent (e.g. Russell et al., 2004; Zucker &
McGhee, 2005). In order to better understand the relationship between technology and
student interest, research participants were asked how they perceived technology
impacting their teaching or learning.
Students consistently noted that learning with technology was “more fun” and that
it “helps us learn,” while also suggesting that they more thoroughly learn lesson content
when technology is used within the learning process. Teachers also noted the increased
level of student interest and enjoyment in learning when technology was utilized, and two
150
of the three teachers indicated a desire to incorporate more technology into their daily
instruction; Christie and her students both indicated they had perhaps reached a saturation
point with technology and did not believe that they could or should use technology any
more than their current level of integration.
The changes in learner interactions and interest were nowhere more evident than
in Anna’s classroom, as she purposefully worked to bring more technology into her
traditional practice. Anna reflected that students “want more technology” and would
“prefer to manage their own learning,” while also admitting that students may not “enjoy
a classroom where there are no computers.” A truly remarkable difference in learner
interactions was observed in this classroom between the structured, teacher-centered
lessons and those that moved to a student-centered focus with educational technology
providing an avenue for students to engage with their teacher and one another during the
learning process. As a result of these discussions and findings from the data, it was
concluded that the purposeful integration of educational technology provides a source of
interest and motivation for students that can result in deeper engagement in the learning
process and significant interactions of classroom inhabitants.
Observer Effect on the Research
The qualitative study reported in this document was conducted in a school where
the researcher simultaneously served as researcher and school principal, and thus was the
direct supervisor of the research participants. Classroom teachers were selected for the
project purposefully due to their varied experience and use of educational technology, but
also because the researcher perceived a level of trust between the researcher and the
151
researched that would facilitate the collection of deep, rich data and not unduly influence
or impact the findings of the study.
The research was conducted as openly as possible, and all participants of the
study were informed of the nature and purpose of the research prior to indicating their
consent to participate. Throughout the data collection process the researcher was
identified by the use of a large nametag, although this appeared to have little impact on
the student participants as they primarily interacted with the researcher in his role as
school principal.
While attempting to conduct the research with as little disruption or impact as
possible, the researcher was aware that he was significantly increasing his level of
interaction within these classrooms. A potential stress on the adult participants could
have resulted as he regularly invaded what Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen (1994) referred to
as the “fishbowl” (p. 40) that teachers inhabit under the scrutiny of outsiders – including
principals. Although teachers consistently indicated comfort and trust in their dealings
with the researcher, power and gender relationships could have potentially impacted the
research (Møller, 1998; Paisley, 1994).
During the interview process, the researcher-supervisor dichotomy was explored
with the participants. They indicated consistently that this dual role had a negligible
impact on their day-to-day activities and viewed the researcher’s presence in a positive
manner, with no indication of power or gender issues emerging through the data.
Teachers made statements to the effect of “I respect you as a principal,” “we were all
comfortable,” and “it didn’t bother me at all.” All three teachers reflected on a level of
trust that had been established with the researcher, and that they interpreted his presence
152
in their classrooms as “a person who wants to make things better,” who was “here to
help,” and who did not impact the delivery of instruction “at all.”
Students interviewed from all three classrooms referenced certain students they
perceived to act differently while the researcher was present, including improved
behavior or acting like they knew “what was going on,” although the teachers all
interpreted these observations as isolated events and not significantly different from how
students acted on a regular basis. The students also indicated a positive response from the
research activities and a level of trust with the researcher, as they “felt comfortable,” and
perceived the researcher as “another teacher” in the classroom who was “helpful to us.”
Teacher and student participants consistently displayed a high level of comfort
and trust with the researcher throughout the study, and relationships with teachers
deepened as a result of the increased time observing, talking about the research, visiting
about students, and reflecting together over personal and professional issues over the
course of the journey. In view of the findings presented earlier and the relationships that
strengthened during the process, it was concluded that the researcher-supervisor
dichotomy had little impact on the outcome of the research on learner interactions due to
a significant level of trust and comfort between the researcher and participants.
An additional role inhabited by the researcher did in fact impact the research. As a
regular visitor to the classrooms for over a year, the researcher had become known as a
technology expert who often assisted students and teachers with the use of technological
resources and troubleshooting of hardware issues. This practice continued in the new role
of participant observer as the research commenced and continued throughout the study,
and was not markedly different than the pre-research context other than increased contact
153
time due to the research schedule. In terms of Anna’s class, however, the teacher used her
participation in the research project as a personal motivation to begin integrating
technology into her classroom – a decision that allowed the researcher an opportunity for
a number of teachable moments as he sought to help her enhance her pedagogical
practice at her request.
In light of this factor, it could be argued that the observer (or Hawthorne) effect in
this research unnecessarily altered the research context by changing the natural
environment, and that the researcher’s social construction and biases could have impacted
the outcomes of the study (Carpenter, 1999). However, it could also be claimed that such
an event served to strengthen the research, as the researcher was able to observe an
evolution occurring as Anna pursued her desire to grow professionally and strengthen her
teaching practice. It was thus concluded that, while the research did indeed change the
environment in one of the classrooms, the data indicate that when appropriate support and
encouragement are provided in a climate of mutual trust and respect – and perceived as
helpful and non-threatening – teachers are open to learning new skills that will serve to
enhance their pedagogy and be meaningful to students.
The research began with the knowledge that these two competing roles might be
difficult to distinguish by the participants while being rather clear-cut to the researcher.
Instances in all three classrooms occurred, however, where the researcher initially
struggled with observing teachers and students through a different lens than that which he
was accustomed to. A period of adjustment was required as the researcher periodically
refocused observations on the purpose of the study, and such deviations lessened as the
research progressed and the researcher openly reflected on such occurrences. It was also
154
noted that one or two other inhabitants of the school – from outside the research process –
questioned the time spent with particular classrooms and the researcher being focused on
this project to the potential detriment of the school. This perception was not anticipated,
and thus the rest of the school staff had not been formally informed of the details of this
project. In a post-data collection staff meeting, the research process and district/university
support of the work was reviewed, which allayed the majority of issues presented by a
minority of faculty. As a reflection of these experiences throughout the research project,
it was also concluded that research conducted by a school administrator in their own
school is entirely possible and potentially beneficial; full, honest, and open
communication about the research should occur early and often with all adult inhabitants
(even with those not involved) to avoid misconceptions that could negatively impact
research outcomes.
Summary of Conclusions
A discussion of the findings from across the three case studies has been presented
in the previous pages, which in turn led to a number of conclusions offered from this
qualitative research project. Said conclusions are offered in summary below:
1. There is a definitive connection between each teacher’s guiding
philosophy and beliefs and the pedagogical tools they employ in the
delivery of instruction to their students. Significant to this connection is
that when a new tool or method of instruction is introduced and perceived
as contrary to their guiding philosophy, adoption of such a device is
difficult to embrace.
155
2. The guiding beliefs of teachers have a significant impact on how students
interact with their teacher and one another during the learning process.
3. Elementary students are definitively cognizant of how their teachers
present instructional material, and readily accept their teachers as experts
and methods of teaching as the “right way.”
4. In order for teachers to make substantial and meaningful use of the
technological tools at their disposal, while at the same time adjusting or
changing their pedagogical approaches, opportunities to subsume new
learning into previous knowledge must be consistently provided in a
manner that differentiates instruction to meet the needs of individual
teachers.
5. Teachers benefit significantly from involvement in activities that
challenge them to look deeply at their own practice and to be active
learners as they dare to incorporate these new practices into their
classrooms.
6. Increased interactions between students and teachers, particularly as
teachers give away control to their students and learn along with them and
from them, contribute to a more collaborative environment where all
inhabitants of the classroom learn from each other.
7. Teachers dramatically control the interaction of learners – with content
and with one another – by the pedagogical choices they employ in their
classrooms.
156
8. When teachers utilize student-centered problem and project-based
activities within their classroom instruction, motivation, engagement, and
learner interactions significantly increase.
9. When technology is utilized to support traditional modes of instruction,
learner interactions are not significantly different from lessons devoid of
technology and are directly related to individual teachers’ teaching styles
and expectations as students work independently.
10. The use of educational technology, even when directed toward
independent tasks, results in increased student motivation and engagement
in the learning process.
11. The integration of educational technology into the teaching and learning
process contributes to increased communication and collaboration among
learners when students are allowed to work with one another toward a
common goal.
12. While constructivist teaching and learning are not dependent on
technology – or an immediate outgrowth of its use – educational
technology provides a learner-centered pedagogical tool that can
significantly contribute to meaningful constructivist practice when
thoughtfully integrated into instruction.
13. The purposeful integration of educational technology provides a source of
interest and motivation for students that can result in deeper engagement
in the learning process and significant interactions of classroom
inhabitants.
157
14. The researcher-supervisor dichotomy had little impact on the outcome of
the research on learner interactions due to a significant level of trust and
comfort between the researcher and participants.
15. When appropriate support and encouragement are provided in a climate of
mutual trust and respect – and perceived as helpful and non-threatening –
teachers are open to learning new skills that will serve to enhance their
pedagogy and be meaningful to students.
16. Research conducted by a school administrator in their own school is
entirely possible and potentially beneficial; full, honest, and open
communication about the research should occur early and often with all
adult inhabitants (even with those not involved) to avoid misconceptions
that could negatively impact research outcomes.
Implications of the Research
A discussion of the findings and conclusions of the research has been presented in
the previous pages of this chapter, and the focus of this final section of the report turns to
implications that can be made as the conclusions of this research are applied to current
and future educational practice. While not exhaustive in nature and open to interpretation
by the reader, these implications are presented with the intent that they will provoke
additional discussion and debate by the educational community as educators seek to
improve the educational climate of 21st Century classrooms, and as researchers consider
the possibility of further exploration of these issues.
This research was conducted to investigate the impact educational technology
exerts on how learners interact with one another in elementary classrooms. Technology
158
does indeed have a role to play in the education of 21st Century learners, and most
decidedly provides a vehicle for increased learner interaction, student-centered learning,
and the increased motivation and engagement of students. These benefits, however, do
not just magically happen as educational technology is introduced into today’s
classrooms.
In reviewing the findings and conclusions, one thing became readily apparent –
the individual teacher controls what content is presented, how it is presented, how
students interact with one another, and what tools are used to assist students in learning.
In other words, teachers significantly matter! Research reviewed for this study continues
to indicate that certain pedagogical choices (e.g. learner-centered and project-based
teaching) may result in higher levels of student engagement and achievement. Said
research also indicates, however, that teachers will likely teach the way they were taught
or in the manner in which they themselves learn best; the three teachers featured in this
study confirmed this conclusion. To change teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices is
to ask them to change their very core, which is a difficult journey when such practices
run contrary to their deeply held beliefs. Providing opportunities to learn more deeply
about teaching and learning styles while supporting the experimentation of instructional
changes is a significant implication of this study for practicing school administrators.
The interactions of learners – both teachers and students – were the primary focus
of this research, primarily in what impact educational technology played in such
interactions. The results of the study clearly indicated that, when utilized in lessons with a
constructivist orientation, a higher level of interaction was observed. Whether the
technology influenced the pedagogical choice or the pedagogical choice allowed higher
159
levels of interaction when technology was used as an instructional tool was not fully
delineated. However, in that more interaction in the learning environment was observed
when both factors were present, a connection between the two factors clearly exists. As
schools seek to expand their use of educational technology, serious attention should be
given to supporting pedagogical approaches that can significantly enhance the benefit of
these tools.
The researcher, as a practicing 21st Century school administrator, has aggressively
pursued the purchase and installation of significant technological resources, often
assuming that teachers will “take up the torch” and learn how to utilize the resources at
their disposal. While serious consideration has been provided to the acquisition of these
resources, little has been given to considering the impact such resources would have on
individual teachers. A range of reaction to the availability of technology has been
observed in this school as some teachers have embraced the technology while others have
attempted to utilize it in rather traditional applications, and some have all but avoided
bringing it into their classrooms. Although some attempts to train teachers in the use of
these tools have occurred, teachers have primarily been left on their own to use,
experiment, and learn while at the same time continuing their daily duties of educating
the next generation.
A salient and serious implication of this study, then, is that practicing school
administrators must make a tremendous effort to provide appropriate and differentiated
professional development if true change in instructional practice is expected to occur.
The teacher in the third case study, who had been in the field only five years, had
experienced no more college coursework in technology integration than the teachers who
160
had graduated two decades before. Even though teacher preparation programs may have
changed in the past few years and likely will continue to be modified based on current
opportunities, the fact remains that schools are filled with teachers who will be “on the
job” for 10, 20, even 30 years hence. It is incumbent upon schools and districts to not rely
upon osmosis to transform Industrial Age classrooms into Digital Age classrooms (The
George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2002). Significant and continuing professional
development – both in the use of educational technology and in learning theory – must
occur for change of this magnitude to take place.
Related to the implication of increasing professional development opportunities
for teachers was an unexpected finding that the research project itself provided a
significant learning opportunity for the researcher and teachers as they participated in the
study. The research project provided a number of conversations about teaching and
learning that went far beyond the norm in this elementary school setting, and the adult
participants found the reflective process to be of benefit to their personal understanding
of their philosophical and pedagogical preferences while encouraging them to improve
their practice. Thus an equally unexpected implication of this research is that school
professionals should seriously consider school based research of this type to achieve
positive change in schools and individual teachers’ professional learning.
As in the case of the researcher and teachers having the opportunity to grow
professionally from the increased dialogue and understanding of the research focus, the
teachers involved in the study benefited as well from the opportunity to understand how
their students perceived their teaching, their classrooms, and their relationships with
students. While this study provided information via a confidential focus group interview
161
on a limited topic, it is certainly a possibility that elementary students, when provided an
opportunity to provide their teacher with reflective feedback, will rise to the occasion and
offer unusual insight into the world of students and their perceptions of their classrooms.
This study should serve as an encouragement to teachers to actively engage students in
the process of reflective feedback – a process that will assist in improving instruction as
well as deepening a sense of community in classrooms as teachers truly listen to the
voices of their students.
An additional caveat to this research came as the researcher found deeper and
more trusting relationships with teachers developing through this shared experience.
During the data collection period a number of administrative tasks were set aside in order
to open up additional time for classroom observations, and the result of this increased
time and the non-evaluative focus of the research led to a much greater appreciation and
understanding for what these teachers do every day. This depth of relationship does not
yet exist with all of the members of the school culture, but the researcher has been
encouraged by the research to continue building stronger relationships with others. This
is not an easy task, particularly when administrative assignments often change every few
years, but a renewed focus for this practicing administrator is “relationships matter.” As
students typically respond to teachers with whom they connect on a personal level, so
much more likely will teachers respond to the leadership of an administrator with whom
they connect on a personal level. The likelihood of positive experiences occurring for
students is much enhanced when professional educators work in an environment of
mutual trust and respect for one another.
162
At the beginning of this dissertation is found an epigraph taken from a book by
psychologist Jerome S. Bruner that reads, “The rate of change in the society in which we
live forces us to redefine how we shall educate a new generation” (1966, p. 22). Bruner
added a caution in this work, in that “education will require constant redefinition…the
period ahead may involve such a rapid rate of change in specific technology that narrow
skills will become obsolete within a reasonably short time after their acquisition” (p. 32).
These sentiments, written forty years ago in response to the difficulties facing schools in
a significantly different time, are highly applicable for schools and educators facing the
education of students in the Digital Age. Schools are still faced with the rapid change
Bruner spoke of, as well as said difficulties inherent in redefining education given the
needs of the current generation. It is the desire of the researcher that this study will assist
the education community in better understanding the needs of 21st Century schools as we
embrace the challenges of today and look forward to those that still lie ahead.
163
LIST OF REFERENCES
164
Adams, S., & Burns, M. (1999). Connecting student learning and technology. Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/tec26.html
Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (1994). Studying your own school: An
educator's guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (2001). School investments in instructional technology.
Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations,
University of California, Irvine.
Apple Computer. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning, &
technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Cupertino, CA: Author.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Bodmin, Cornwall: Blackwell.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Bebell, D. (2005). Technology promoting student excellence: An investigation of the first
year of 1:1 computing in New Hampshire middle schools. Boston: Technology
and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.
Becker, H. J., Ravitz, J. L., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student
use of computers and software. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information
Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine.
165
Bloom, G. S. (1996). Caveat emptor buyer beware (technohype). Learning in the Real
World. Retrieved April 19, 2004, from
http://www.realworld.org/articles/Caveat_Empt.html
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bringuier, J.-C. (1980). Conversations with Jean Piaget. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Brooks, J. G. (2004). Constructivism as a paradigm for teaching and learning.
Educational Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html
Brown, B. L. (2003). Teaching style vs. learning style. Myths and realities. Columbus,
OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction No. ED 482 329)
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21-32.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Carpenter, V. (1999, November). Neither objective nor neutral? Reflecting on my
subjectivity throughout the research process in Takiwa School. Paper presented at
the Joint Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education and
the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, Australia.
166
Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of
technology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (2001). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online
courses. Retrieved August 23, 2005, from
http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html
Congress of the United States. (1995). Teachers & technology: Making the connection.
OTA report summary. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the U.S., Office of
Technology Assessment.
Coughlin, E. C., & Lemke, C. (1999). Professional competency continuum: Professional
skills for the digital age classroom. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family
Foundation.
Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakely, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2003). ICT
and pedagogy: A review of the research literature. London: British Educational
Communications and Technology Agency.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1996, October 9). Techno-reformers and classroom teachers. Education Week
on the Web. Retrieved March 22, 2004, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1996/10/09/06cuban.h16.html
Cuban, L. (1997, May 21). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching. Education Week on
the Web. Retrieved March 22, 2004, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1997/05/21/34cuban.h16.html
167
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 27(3),
10-13, 21.
Dirksen, D. J., & Tharp, D. (2000, June). Moving beyond the crossroads: Teachers as
agents for change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Educational Computing Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Dwyer, D. C. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we've learned. Educational
Leadership, 51(7), 4-10.
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990a). Teacher beliefs and practices Part I: Patterns of change. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer.
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990b). Teacher beliefs and practices Part II: Support for change. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic
inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gibson, I. W. (2000). Infusion, integration or transformation? Moving towards a
pedagogy of learning through educational technology. In M. Selinger & J. Wynn
(Eds.), Educational technology and the impact on teaching and learning:
168
Proceedings of an international research forum at BETT 2000 (pp. 47-52).
Abingdon, Oxon, United Kingdom: RM plc.
Gibson, I. W. (2001). At the intersection of technology and pedagogy: Considering styles
of learning and teaching. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 10(1), 37-61.
Hall, B. L., & Kassam, Y. (1988). Participatory research. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.),
Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international
handbook (pp. 150-155). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Heath, M., Burns, M., Dimock, K. V., Burniske, J., Menchaca, M., & Ravitz, J. (2000).
Applying technology to restructuring and learning. Final research report. Austin,
TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab. (ERIC Document Reproduction
No. ED 448 977)
Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 17-26.
Idaho Council for Technology in Learning. (1999). The Idaho technology initiative: An
accountability report to the Idaho Legislature on the effects of monies spent
through the Idaho Council for Technology in Learning. Boise, ID: Author.
Integrating New Technologies Into the Methods of Education. (1999). Students at the
center of their own learning. Author. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from
http://www.intime.uni.edu/model/center_of_learning_files/definition.html
Ivers, K. S. (2002, April). Changing teachers' perceptions and use of technology in the
classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
169
Jeroski, S. (2005). Research report: The wireless writing program 2004-2005.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Horizon Research & Evaluation.
Kleiman, G. M. (2000). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools. The
Center for Online Professional Education. Retrieved March 22, 2004, from
http://www.edc.org/LNT/news/Issue14/feature1.htm
Kosakowski, J. (1998). The benefits of information technology. Syracuse, NY: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction
No. ED 420 302)
Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). Involving community members in focus groups.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Laptops for Learning Task Force. (2004). Laptops for learning: Final report and
recommendations of the Laptops for Learning Task Force. Educational
Technology Clearinghouse. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from
http://etc.usf.edu/L4L/Report.pdf
Layton, T. G. (2000). Digital learning: Why tomorrow's schools must learn to let go of
the past. Electronic School, September 2000. Retrieved January 24, 2006, from
http://www.electronic-school.com/2000/09/0900f1.html
Lemke, C., & Coughlin, E. C. (1998). Technology in American schools: Seven
dimensions for gauging progress. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on
Education Technology.
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2003). One-to-one computing in Maine: A State profile. Culver
City, CA: Metiri Group.
170
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2004a). One-to-one computing in Indiana: A State profile.
Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2004b). One-to-one computing in Michigan: A State profile.
Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2004c). One-to-one computing in Virginia: A State profile.
Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lockwood, A. T. (1998). Technology and education: The current debate. North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 426
483)
Mann, D., C. Shakeshaft, Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia story:
Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology
program. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
Maricopa Center for Learning & Instruction. (2001). Problem-based learning. Author.
Retrieved April 29, 2006, from http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/info.html
Market Data Retrieval. (2005). The K-12 technology review highlights. Author. Retrieved
July 6, 2005, from http://www.schooldata.com/mdrtechhilites.asp
Martin, W., Kanaya, T., & Crichton, J. (2004). Findings from the 2003 end of school year
survey: Intel teach to the future, U.S. classic implementation. New York: Center
for Children and Technology, Education Development Center.
McHugh, J. (2005). Synching up with the iKid: Educators must work to understand and
motivate a new kind of digital learner. Edutopia, October 2005, 32-35.
171
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milrad, M. (2003). Mobile learning: Challenges, myths, and reality. Växjö, Sweden:
Center for Learning and Knowledge Technologies (CeLeKT), Växjö University.
Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a
digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education.
Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Møller, J. (1998). Action research with principals: Gain, strain and dilemmas.
Educational Action Research, 6(1), 69-91.
Newhouse, C. P., Trinidad, S., & Clarkson, B. (2002a). Quality pedagogy and effective
learning with information and communications technologies (ICT): A review of
the literature. Perth, Western Australia: Specialist Education Services.
Newhouse, C. P., Trinidad, S., & Clarkson, B. (2002b). Teacher professional ICT
attributes: A framework. Perth, Western Australia: Specialist Educational
Services.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
O'Dwyer, L., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. (2004a). Elementary teachers' use of technology:
Characteristics of teachers, schools and districts associated with technology use.
Boston: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.
O'Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. J. (2004b, September 14). Identifying teacher,
school and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers' use of
technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
12(48). Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu./epaa/v12n48/
172
Paisley, P. O. (1994). Gender issues in supervision. ERIC Digest. Greensboro, NC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services. (ERIC Document
Reproduction No. ED 372 345)
Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the President on the use of
technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, D.C.:
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Parsad, B., & Jones, J. (2005). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms:
1994-2003 (No. NCES 2005-015). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Pasnik, S., Hess, A., & Heinze, C. (2001). Mindsurf networks: Schools of innovation
evaluation overview. New York: Center for Children and Technology.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget's Theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th
ed., Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
Pisapia, J. R., Coukos, E. D., & Knutson, K. (2000, April). The impact of computers on
teacher capacity, attitudes, and behaviors in elementary schools. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Pitler, H., Flynn, K., & Gaddy, B. (2004). Is a laptop initiative in your future? Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
173
Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and
practices among U.S. teachers. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information
Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine.
Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology
investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco: WestEd RTEC.
Ringstaff, C., Yocam, K., & Marsh, J. (1996). Integrating technology into classroom
instruction: An assessment of the impact of the ACOT teacher development center
project. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc.
Rockman ET AL. (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second year study of the laptop
program. San Francisco: Author.
Rockman, S. (2003). Learning from laptops. Threshold: Exploring the Future of
Education, Fall 2003. Retrieved September 13, 2005, from
http://www.ciconline.org/AboutCIC/Publications/Archives/threshold_fall03.htm
Rogers, P. L. (1999). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education.
Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University. (ERIC Document
Reproduction No. ED 429 556)
Ross, S. M., Lowther, D. L., & Morrison, G. R. (2001). Anytime, anywhere learning,
final evaluation report of the laptop program: Year 2. Memphis, TN: Center for
Research in Educational Policy.
Rudy, D. W. (2003). Learning with handhelds: Michigan schools unplugged in Berrien
County. New Buffalo, MI: Lakehouse Evaluation.
174
Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., & Corbelli, M. (2002). An AlphaSmart for each
student: Does teaching and learning change with full access to word processors?
Boston: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Higgins, J. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching
and learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts of
laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Boston: Technology and Assessment Study
Collaborative, Boston College.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology:
Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000).
Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and
everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.
Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2000). Children and computer technology: Analysis
and recommendations. The Future of Children, 10(2), 4-30.
Silvernail, D. L., & Lane, D. M. M. (2004). The impact of Maine's one-to-one laptop
program on middle school teachers and students: Phase one summary evidence.
Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Southern
Maine.
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000).
Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology.
175
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Smith, M. K. (2002). Jerome S. Bruner and the process of education. The Encyclopaedia
of Informal Education. Retrieved November 7, 2005, from
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/bruner.htm
Software & Information Industry Association. (2000). 2000 research report on the
effectiveness of technology in schools: Executive summary. Washington. D.C.:
Author.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Stitt-Gohdes, W. L. (2001). Business education students' preferred learning styles and
their teachers' preferred instructional styles: Do they match? Delta Pi Epsilon,
43(3), 137-151.
Stuebing, S., Celsi, J. G., & Cousineau, L. K. (1994). Environments that support new
modes of learning: The results of two interactive design workshops. Cupertino,
CA: Apple Computer.
Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., & Penuel, W. R. (2003). Handhelds go to school:
lessons learned. Computer, 36(9), 30-37.
The George Lucas Educational Foundation (Ed.). (2002). Edutopia: Success stories for
learning in the digital age. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Trotter, A. (2005). Bush vs. Clinton: The current administration's priorities differ from its
predecessor's. Education Week. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/05/05/35data-s1.h24.html
176
Vahey, P., & Crawford, V. (2002). Palm education pioneers program: Final evaluation
report. Milpitas, CA: Palm, Inc.
van 't Hooft, M., & Diaz, S. (2002). Palm education pioneers research hub: Year-end
status report. Kent, OH: The Research Center for Educational Technology, Kent
State University.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.
Weiner, R. S. (2000). Industry group's education study draws conclusions and critics.
The New York Times on the Web. Retrieved April 19, 2004, from
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/08/cyber/education/30education.html
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational
technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Zeni, J. (1998). A guide to ethical issues and action research. Educational Action
Research, 6(1), 9-19.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom
technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
177
Zucker, A. A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics
and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools.
Arlington, VA: SRI International.
178
APPENDICES
179
Appendix A – Adult Consent Form
Department of Educational Leadership
September 2005
Dear Research Participant,
As a requirement of the completion of my Doctor of Education degree in Educational Leadership, I have
proposed a study to investigate the changes that occur in interactions in the learning environment due to the presence
and use of instructional technology. Participants have been selected based upon a variety of teaching styles and
perceived levels of technology integration. Your participation will consist of a series of formal classroom observations
in which I will observe the interactions in the learning environment of your classroom. Each formal observation will
last approximately 90 minutes in length. Additionally, a number of informal walk-through observations will be
completed weekly throughout the data collection process. Finally, I will ask you to participate in a personal interview
that will last no longer than 60 minutes and will be held at a time and in a location that is mutually convenient. The
results of this study will assist me in discovering what changes in learner interactions occur when technology is utilized
within the learning environment. There is no intent to use these data in any way that can be construed to be an
evaluation of your teaching behavior. This study is a descriptive study only. Findings from this research may be
presented at regional, national, or international conferences and may result in publication in scholarly journals.
Your interview responses will remain confidential and you will not be personally identified in the final
report. With your agreement, the interview will be tape recorded to assist me in accurately describing your responses;
recordings will be maintained through the completion of the project and then erased. To insure accuracy, I will
summarize your responses at the conclusion of your interview and provide you with the opportunity to edit or correct
any misinterpretations or misunderstandings.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you are under no obligation to participate. Your decision
not to participate will not affect your future relations with the researcher, school district, or university. If you have
questions please contact me at (316) 973-0650 or rmiller@usd259.net, Dr. Ian Gibson, dissertation advisor, at
ian.gibson@wichita.edu, or the Department of Educational Leadership at (316) 978-3325. If you have any questions
pertaining to your rights as a research participant, you can contact the Office of Research Administration at Wichita
State University, Wichita, Kansas, 67260-0007, telephone (316) 978-3285.
By signing one copy of this form you are granting your permission to participate in the proposed observations
and interview. You are welcome to keep a copy of the form. Your signature indicates that you have read the
information provided above and voluntarily agree to participate in the study. You may also withdraw from the study at
any time prior to March 15, 2006, without penalty or fear of reprisal. Thank you for assisting me in this important
study.
Sincerely,
Russell K. Miller
WSU Doctoral Student
I consent to the aforementioned classroom observations and personal interview.
Participant Signature
Date
180
Appendix B – Parent Consent/Student Assent Form
Department of Educational Leadership
September 2005
Dear Research Participant and Parent/Legal Guardian:
As a requirement of the completion of my Doctor of Education degree in Educational Leadership, I have proposed a
study to investigate the changes that occur in interactions in the learning environment due to the presence and use of
instructional technology. Classrooms have been selected based upon a variety of teaching styles and perceived levels of
technology integration. Your participation will consist of a series of formal classroom observations in which I will observe the
interactions in the learning environment of your classroom. Each formal observation will last approximately 90 minutes in
length. Additionally, a number of informal walk-through observations will be completed weekly throughout the data collection
process. Further, I will ask selected groups of students to participate in a focus group interview that will last no longer than 60
minutes and will be held at a time and in a location that is mutually convenient. The results of this study will assist me in
discovering what changes in learner interactions occur when technology is utilized within the learning environment. Findings
from this research may be presented at regional, national, or international conferences and may result in publication in
scholarly journals.
In order for you to participate in a focus group interview, it is necessary to gain your consent for the interview and
the approval of your parent/legal guardian. I would greatly appreciate your involvement in the research in order to incorporate
your unique perspective on the topic. Your interview responses will remain confidential and you will not be personally
identified in the final report. With your agreement, the interviews will be tape recorded to assist me in accurately describing
responses; recordings will be maintained through the completion of the project and then erased. To insure accuracy, I will
summarize participant responses at the conclusion of the interview and provide the opportunity to edit or correct any
misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary and students are under no obligation to participate. Your decision not
to participate will not affect your future relations with the school, district or university. If you have questions please contact
me at (316) 973-0650 or rmiller@usd259.net, Dr. Ian Gibson, dissertation advisor, at ian.gibson@wichita.edu, or the
Department of Educational Leadership at (316) 978-3325. If you have any questions pertaining to your rights as a research
participant, you can contact the Office of Research Administration at Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, 67260-0007,
telephone (316) 978-3285.
By signing one copy of this form, permission is being granted for a minor student to participate in this study. The
student signature indicates that you have read the information provided above and voluntarily agree to participate in the study.
You are welcome to keep a copy of the form. You may also withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or fear of
reprisal. Thank you for assisting me in this important study.
Sincerely,
Russell K. Miller
WSU Doctoral Student
I consent to my child participating in classroom observations related to the WSU research study.
I consent to my child participating in a focus group interview related to the WSU research study.
Parent/Guardian Signature
Date
I assent to participating in classroom observations related to the WSU research study.
I assent to participating in a focus group interview related to the WSU research study
Student Signature
Date
181
Appendix C – Personal Interview Protocol
Dissertation Interview Protocol, December 2005
As you know, I have been conducting research this fall related to my completion
of a Doctorate of Education degree from Wichita State University. This research project
has focused on the interactions between students and teachers in your classroom,
particularly in reference to any impact educational technology is having on those
interactions.
You were selected because of your ability and willingness to not only allow this
research to take place in your classroom but also to provide information about the
research topic based on your own personal and professional experiences to date. I want
you to feel free to share your opinions regarding this topic, being mindful that there is no
specific right or wrong answer to any of the questions. Please keep in mind that I am
interested in all comments whether they are positive or negative, and that your honest
responses will serve to insure that this research is accurate and truly reflective of your
perspective.
Before we begin, I would like to share a few procedures for this conversation.
Although we will be on a first name basis today, no names will be used when I report the
results of the study. You can be assured of complete confidentiality. With your
permission, I would like to digitally record our session today so that I will be able to
more carefully listen to your ideas later. The recording will only be used for the purpose
of note taking and will be destroyed following the completion of the study. Participation
in this study is entirely voluntary, for which you consented earlier this year. I would ask
that you reconfirm your consent at this time.
182
This session should last between 45 and 60 minutes. Do you have any questions
about the research process prior to our interview beginning?
1. I’d like to hear a little about your educational background. How many years
have you been teaching? Where did you receive your degree, and what was
the focus? What advanced degrees have you earned or are pursuing at the
present time?
2. How would you summarize your personal philosophy about teaching? How
has your philosophy changed over the years you have been teaching?
3. As you consider your day-to-day decisions regarding the delivery of
instruction in your classroom, what would you describe to be your preferred
approach to teaching? Why? How do you feel students learn best in your
classroom? Describe the way you involve students in classroom activities.
4. Think for a moment about the predominant learning relationships in your
classroom. How do students typically interact with one another while involved
in the learning process in your classroom? How do they typically interact with
you in your classroom?
5. In your opinion, what role should educational technology play in elementary
classrooms? What role do you see it play in your classroom?
6. [Interviewees were asked to consider these four questions prior to the
interview taking place] How would you describe your educational technology
skills? What training in the use of educational technology have you
experienced? What would you say is your prevailing attitude toward
technology in your classroom? David C. Dwyer proposed the following
‘levels of adoption’ of technology integration while working with the Apple
Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project in the early 1990s. Where would
you rate yourself on the ‘levels of adoption?’
Entry. Learn the basics of using the new technology.
Adoption. Use new technology to support traditional instruction.
Adaptation. Integrate new technology into traditional classroom practice.
Here, they often focus on increased student productivity and engagement by
using word processors, spreadsheets, and graphics tools.
Appropriation. Focus on cooperative, project-based, and
interdisciplinary work—incorporating the technology as needed and as one of
many tools.
Invention. Discover new uses for technology tools, for example,
developing spreadsheet macros for teaching algebra or designing projects
that combine multiple technologies.
183
7. Describe why you placed yourself at the _________ level of adoption.
8. How has your teaching practice changed from before you began to integrate
technology into your lessons? Do you see these changes as significant to the
outcomes of your teaching? How so?
9. In what ways do you think the integration of technology in your classroom has
influenced interactions between students and between you and your students?
What impact, if any, should technology have on the way students interact with
you and one another?
10. Do you need to do further technology integration in your classroom? Why or
why not? What additional tools or professional development do you need in
order to accomplish this?
11. How do you envision your teaching and educational philosophy three to five
years from now?
12. As I have conducted research in your classroom, I have been in and out of the
room many times, taking notes, and interacting with your students. My
presence as researcher and principal was perhaps somewhat blurred during
this time frame, even though you were aware of the process I was involved in.
Describe how you felt about me conducting this research in your classroom
over the past months. How did the dual role of principal and researcher
influence your day-to-day decisions? What differences did you observe in
how students interacted while I was present as compared to other times during
the day? How did my supervisory role impact your mode of delivering
instruction?
13. As we conclude our interview, can you think of anything else I need to know
about this topic or the research process?
184
Appendix D – Student Focus Group Protocol
Dissertation Focus Group Protocol, December 2005
In addition to my job of being your principal this year, I also have been
conducting research this fall as a part of classes I am taking at Wichita State University.
My research project has been looking at relationships between students and teachers in
your classroom, and how using technology in your classroom might be changing those
relationships.
You were selected for this group interview because of your ability to speak about
and share your opinions about this topic. I want you to feel free to share your opinions
about this topic, being mindful that there is no specific right or wrong answer to any of
the questions, and that I am interested in all comments whether they are positive or
negative.
Before we begin, I would like to share a few procedures for this conversation.
Although we will be on a first name basis today, no names will be used when I report the
results of the study. You can be assured of complete confidentiality. With your
permission, I would like to digitally record our session today so that I will be able to
more carefully listen to your ideas later. The recording will only be used for the purpose
of note taking and will be destroyed following the completion of the study. Participation
in this study is entirely voluntary, for which you and your parents consented earlier this
year. I would ask that you reconfirm your consent at this time.
This interview should last between 45 and 60 minutes. Do you have any questions
about the research process prior to our interview beginning?
185
1. Your teacher uses a variety of methods to teach you in your classroom. How
would you describe your teacher’s favorite way of teaching? How do you feel
students learn best in your classroom? Describe the way students are involved
in classroom activities.
2. Think for a moment about relationships between the people in your classroom.
How do students typically interact with or relate to one another during
instruction in your classroom? How do students typically interact or relate
with the teacher in your classroom?
3. We have lots of different types of technology in our school, like Palms,
projectors, laptops, etc. How do you see technology being used in your
classroom? What other ways do you think it should be used?
4. How has your learning changed from before you began to use technology in
your classroom?
5. In what ways do you think using technology in your classroom has influenced
interactions or relationships between students? What about your interactions
or relationships with your teacher?
6. Do you need to use technology more in your classroom? Why or why not?
7. As I have conducted research in your classroom, I have been in and out of the
room many times, taking notes, and interacting with students. Describe how
you felt about me conducting this research in your classroom over the past
months. What differences did you observe in how students interacted while I
was present as compared to other times during the day? How did my presence
impact your teacher’s teaching?
8. As we conclude our interview, can you think of anything else I need to know
about this topic or the research process?
186